We Design & Do It Because We Love It by Laurens Hebly

WE DESIGN AND DO IT BECAUSE WE LOVE IT

Professional, Pro-Am and amateur collaboration in the design process: daydream or nightmare?

Laurens Hebly | 9828249 28.11.2007 Creative Development University of Utrecht Professional School of the Arts Thesis advisor | Ingrid Mulder

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION SECTION I / THE PRO-AM REVOLUTION OF DESIGN CULTURE 1. THE PRO-AM / BLURRING THE LINES BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL AND AMATEUR

1.1 What is a Professional and what is an Amateur?

1.2 What is a Professional Amateur?

2. EVOLUTION OF PRO-AM ACTIVITY

2.2 Counterculture ideals: the reversionary and technophiliac tendency

2.3 Democratic principle / participation and debate

2.1 Counterculture ethics: Do-It-Yourself

2.4 Technological advances and the Internet culture

2.5 Techno-elites, hackers, virtual communitarians and entrepreneurs: collaboration, peer review and innovation.

2.6 Commodification and commercialization of Internet culture 3. MAKING DESIGN MORE ‘USEFUL, LASTING AND DEMOCRATIC’ 3.1 Massive Change: design is everywhere

3.2 The Pro-Am movement: engaged and designing

SECTION II / LEARNING FROM THE PRO-AM WORK ETHICS /

Participation and collaboration in the design process

4. ‘Open organizations’ and the Pro-Am work ethic 4.1 Wiki Wiki

4.2 The working ethics of Pro-Am’s: The eight rules of open organization 4.3 ‘Open organizations’ and the Pro-Am designer

5. COLLABORATION IN DESIGN PROCESSES

5.1 Defining collaborative design

5.2 Meta-design: Designing the design

5.3 SER Process Model: A process model for collaborative design 5.4 Application of meta-design in art and design processes

6. EXAMPLE OF META-DESIGN METHODS IN TWO GRAPHIC DESIGN

PROJECTS: ‘DE DIENST’ AND ‘DO’

6.1 ‘de Dienst’: Are democracy and art compatible?

6.2 ‘do’: the ever-changing brand that depends on what you do

6.3 Collaborative design: a significant approach for graphic design?

SECTION III / ENVISAGING AN OPEN, COLLABORATIVE DESIGN INITIATIVE

7. ENVISAGING A OPENLY ORGANIZED AND COLLABORATIVE GRAPHIC DESIGN INITIATIVE

7.1 The concept of ‘do Studio’ / an open studio for visual arts & communication

7.3 Where would ‘do Studio’ be situated and who would be involved?

7.2 What will ‘do Studio’ be doing?

7.4 How would the studio be organized?

8. DISCUSSING THE CONCEPT OF ‘DO STUDIO’ CONCLUSION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES

We design and do it because we love it | abstract

ABSTRACT There is a growing need and desire in graphic design to make design more “useful,

lasting and democratic”. By involving more people in the design process professional

designers in various fields of design are exploring ways to heed the call for a more open,

constructive and collaborative approach to design. Professional, amateur and professional amateur (Pro-Am) collaboration in design processes has been an influential force in

the development of design culture over the past few decades, particularly in the field of

computational media, for example in ‘open source’ software development. Pro-Am’s find themselves in between the realm of professional and amateur, possessing the skills of

professionals and the devotion of amateurs, without making a living from their efforts. One of the main points of this investigation is to show how Pro-Am and amateur

involvement in design processes has revolutionized the collaborative creative process. Standpoint: Stimulating and directing professional and professional amateur collaboration in design processes will foster “more useful, lasting and democratic forms of communication”.

Investigating Pro-Am work ethics give a clear idea how the Pro-Am design projects

are organized ‘openly’, giving participants open access to tools and information and an open structure to be creative and collaborate with each other. Academic approaches to

collaborative design, such as participatory design1 and meta-design2 give a more in-depth view how professional designers and developers can stimulate and direct collaboration

with Pro-Am and amateur participants. The focus of this investigation is to examine how professional designers can learn from Pro-Am work ethics and employ the meta-design

methods for collaboration the design process. Will this collaboration contribute to ‘more useful, lasting and democratic forms of communication’?

‘do Studio’ is a concept for a collaborative design project that builds on an existing

design initiative, originally developed by communications agency KesselsKramer3 , to

illustrate the open organization of the Pro-Am and the collaborative design methods

of meta-design. The aim of the ‘do Studio’ concept is to envisage the creation of a largescale collaborative design project, to demonstrate how professional and skilled Pro-Am designers can direct such a creative design process.

Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. / Participatory Design: Principles and Practices / Hillsdale, NJ. / 1993 Fischer, G., & Scharff, E / Meta-Design—Design for Designers / New York / 2000 / pp. 396-405. 3 www.kesselskramer.com 1 2

We design and do it because we love it | introduction

INTRODUCTION Greater access to tools, information and communication has made it easier for amateur designers to learn the ‘tricks of the trade’ and work alongside professionals. Amateurs

are becoming more professional, keeping the enthusiasm of amateurs without earning a

living with their efforts. According to Charles Leadbeater4 innovation advisor of former prime minister Tony Blair, this century will signal the rise of professional amateur (ProAm) design initiatives. In his writings on the Pro-Am revolution Leadbeater states that

people underestimate how much design and innovation comes from Pro-Am enthusiasm. Pro-Am’s design because they love to do it, rekindling the idea of human ingenuity, the

‘Do-It-Yourself ’ philosophy that ‘you yourself ’ can take charge in creative and sustainable development and design.

The compelling view that Leadbeater proposes is that the rise of the Pro-Am movement is becoming an influential force in design culture. Similarly, some design critics argue that Pro-Am’s are challenging the position of professional designers, making them

question their own role as designers. A number of designers and artists are already dealing

with this question in constructive ways, exploring new art and design frontiers; thus where professional and amateur, developer and user, producer and consumer interact, participate and collaborate. One of the points of this research is to investigate these changes that are taking place in the design culture, by studying art and design projects that consciously invite their ‘audience’ to become active participants in the creative process.

Involving ‘the audience’ to become a part of the creative process is a development that has been attracting much attention in various fields of creative practice such as architectural

design, theatre, music, software development, game design, advertising and graphic design. Some critical discourse concerning the field of graphic design indicates that there has

been a major movement in design, turning against the growing global commercial culture. An interesting aspect of the discussions among design theorists and critics concentrates on the role graphic design is playing in this development. Many graphic designers and

designers from other fields are opening their eyes and seeing that “Designers who devote their efforts primarily to advertising, marketing and brand development are supporting, and implicitly endorsing, a mental environment so saturated with commercial messages that it is

changing the very way citizen-consumers speak, think, feel, respond and interact”5 This excerpt

from a recent graphic design manifesto called First Things First 2000 describes one of the 4 5

www.charlesleadbeater.net First Things First Manifesto 2000 / in: Looking Closer Four: Critical Writings on Graphic Design / p. 5+6

We design and do it because we love it | introduction

major potholes of contemporary graphic design: the commercial priority of design. Signed by some of the most renowned graphic designers the manifesto stands as a monument for a revived movement in graphic design culture.

The First Things First 2000 manifesto gives a glimpse of where graphic design could be heading. “We propose a reversal of priorities in favour of more useful, lasting, and democratic forms of communication - a mind shift away from product marketing and toward the

exploration and production of new kind of meaning.” An important aspect of this passage for this investigation is that it signals the changes that are taking place in design, not only in graphic design, namely that design is becoming a more democratic process.

The main standpoint that will be discussed in this paper rests on the basis of a ‘reversal of

priorities’ in design; that stimulating and directing professional, professional-amateur and amateur collaboration in design will foster “more useful, lasting and democratic forms of

communication”. In order to defend this standpoint this investigation will concentrate on a number of specific research questions:

1. What defines a Pro-Am? How are Pro-Am’s influencing commercial and socio-cultural productions, and design in particular?

2. How do Pro-Am’s organize the design process? Are there other design methods that could help professional designers to organize the collaborative design process?

3. How could a design project be organized to stimulate and direct professional, Pro-Am and amateur collaboration?

4. Will professional and Pro-Am collaboration contribute to ‘more useful, lasting and democratic forms of communication’?

The research questions will be discussed in three consecutive sections and will hopefully give a comprehensive and insightful look at the compelling debate that is going on in design discourse about the effect the Pro-Am movement is having on design culture.

In Section I the focus will be on defining the Pro-Am movement and the influence it is having on design. Another important point that will be dealt with in this section is that the Pro-Am’s have created a new sense of community and have developed new ways to organize themselves and their work process; making the design process more inclusive and collaborative. The aim of this section is to describe the context in which the Pro-

We design and do it because we love it | introduction

Am movement is developing and to investigate some Pro-Am design activities, giving an impression of the far-reaching effects of the movement, influencing many different aspects of our society. A number of professional and Pro-Am design initiatives will be

examined to give an idea how their collaborative and ‘open’ approach are effecting cultural production.

Section II will deal mainly with the innovative ways Pro-Am’s organize the creative

process and look into (established) methods and working ethics that are being employed in Pro-Am projects to share creative development in the design process. There are also various approaches being discussed in academic research that deal with collaborative

design methods, which go a step further by proposing ways for professionals designers to

stimulate and direct collaboration with Pro-Am’s and amateurs in creative processes. Two

graphic design projects will be described to illustrate the collaborative design methods and the possible ways of applying these methods in design practices.

The aim of section III is to translate the Pro-Am way of working and the collaborative

design models into a concept for a collaborative design project. How would a professional or skilled Pro-Am designer go about organizing the design process to include Pro-Am’s

and amateurs in the development of a project? Building on a project originally proposed by communication agency KesselsKramer ‘do Studio’ is a concept envisaging an ‘open’

design project that creates an environment for collaborative design; a virtual or real-life

space where professional, Pro-Am and amateur designers can collaborate freely in design related projects.

After describing the ‘concept’ of ‘do Studio’, this investigation will evaluate the possible outcome of more collaborative creativity on the participants and the likely benefits and challenges this collaborative approach could have.

We design and do it because we love it | section I

SECTION I / THE PRO-AM REVOLUTION OF DESIGN CULTURE In March 2007 the Items, a bi-monthly magazine for art and design, published an article

about the Pro-Am movement in design culture, featuring an inspiring discussion between Dingeman Kuilman and Charles Leadbeater. Dingeman Kuilman, is director of Platform

21 in Amsterdam, an organization that is “interested in creative developments in fashion and design, including amateur initiatives”6 in design processes. Currently Charles Leadbeater

is writing, maybe even by this time publishing, a book concerning the Pro-Am movement called ‘We think: why mass creativity is the next best thing’. Together Kuilman and

Leadbeater are the two intellectual forerunners and advocates of the Pro-am movement. One of the main points that they discussed in the article was the changing role of

professional designers and the growing involvement of users in creative and productive

processes. This development in design signals an important step for the evolution of the ‘passive consumer’ into the ‘active producer’. “The more that easy to use tools are distributed to a community of knowledgeable users, the easier it is for them to start creating their own

content”7. The professional designers are starting to feel that their role in the design process is changing. Kuilman and Leadbeater believe that professional designers will start to

facilitate involvement of users by concentrating on directing creativity and organizing the design process to be more inclusive and collaborative.8

The following sections will attempt to shed some light on the concept of the professional amateur (Pro-Am), looking closely at the development of Pro-Am activity over the

past decades and the major influence the movement has had on cultural production and innovation.

1. THE PRO-AM / BLURRING THE LINES BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL AND AMATEUR

1.1 What is a Professional and what is an Amateur?

To start with, it is useful to briefly look at the definitions of the terms ‘professional’ and

‘amateur’. As defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary9 , a profession is a “vocation or occupation requiring advanced education and training, and involving intellectual skill”. The term ‘professional’ is one that has most often been defined as a person who practices a

specified “profession for money, as a means of livelihood, rather than as a hobby.” An amateur is http://www.platform21.com/about/ Charles Leadbeater / We Think: Why mass creativity is the next big thing / www.wethinkthebook.net 8 Marc Vlemmings / De beste stuurlui stappen aan boord / In: Items 2 / 2007 9 Webster’s New World Dictionary / Third College Edition / Simon & Schuster / 1988 6 7

We design and do it because we love it | section I

defined as a person who engages in meaningful activity “for the pleasure of it rather than for money, and/or does so without professional skill.”

Kuilman argues that in the 20th century there was a clear distinction between a person’s profession and their socio-cultural position and the activities they were engaged in

besides their profession, which most often were considered to be amateur. The industrial revolution brought about the age of professionalism, in which people were educated to become part of a specified profession and systemized production process, which were

organized into increasingly economically beneficial procedures. As this period defined the professional it also defined those activities that weren’t necessarily professional,

thereby creating a divide, and often a value distinction, between professional activities and amateur activities.

1.2 What is a Professional Amateur?

Nowadays it seems that this division between professional and amateur has become

blurred. Most people still depend on their professional occupations to sustain a desired standard of living, but there is a growing population of people who are challenging the

professional work ethics, by working for pleasure rather than for monetary motives and at a professional level.

There seems to be an increasing need nowadays to develop interests apart from working as a professional in a certain field. Many people are becoming less interested in working for

their companies and getting more involved in developing their personal and socio-cultural interests. “ Your economic life revolves around exploitation. In your socio-cultural life it revolves around exploration.”10

The definitions mentioned before already indicate two main characteristics of a Pro-Am, namely, that they have and employ professional skill and that they engage in meaningful

activity for the pleasure of it rather than for money. These essential features of a Pro-Am are not a novelty, but the interesting point is that they haven’t been widely recognized as an influential force until recently. The Pro-Am’s are individuals and collectives that

find themselves between the realm of the professional and the amateur, challenging the position of professionals and professional organizations.

As you can imagine this is a relatively difficult group of people to study. Pro-Am’s 10

Marc Vlemmings / De beste stuurlui stappen aan boord / In: Items 2 / 2007

We design and do it because we love it | section I

are a hybrid group, and can be found in nearly every field and profession imaginable.

Some Pro-Am’s are organized in large communities and others are smaller specialized

workgroups, some collaborate with professional, others with amateurs. One characteristic

seems to be universal: “Pro-Ams do not tend to be loners. They build collaborative organizations – clubs, mutuals and now networks – because it is very difficult to be a Pro-Am on your own. To

be a Pro-Am requires the systematic acquisition of skills. That involves learning from coaches and peers, which in turn requires social organization so that skills can be passed on and accredited, through clubs, networks, events, competitions and performances.”11

Typically, Pro-Am’s spend most of their ‘leisure’ time working on projects that require considerable knowledge and skill, and they do this for the thrill of a challenge, the

fulfillment of self-expression, or the recognition from their peers. Their incentives to work and develop are fueled by a different set of work ethics, ethics inspired by for example,

active participation, freedom of expression, common (intellectual) property available to all, cooperation, social interaction, companionship, debate, constant innovation, and welfare

for all. Some of these work ethics are unfortunately not very common in professional lives. It is precisely these characteristics that make the Pro-Am’s such an important group to consider more closely.

2. EVOLUTION OF PRO-AM ACTIVITY How and where did the Pro-Am movement start? What were the main influences that lead to the rise of the Pro-Am? Much of the development of the Pro-Am movement can be studied by looking at the last four decades, for example, with the rise of the

counterculture in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the Do-It-Yourself work ethic, the advent of

the computer and computer mediated communication. So where to begin? Many books

could be (and have been) written on the socio-cultural climate that fostered the Pro-Am’s. Therefore it would be best to limit the contextual study to some of the main socio-cultural and technological developments.

2.1 Counterculture ethics: Do-It-Yourself

“A ‘Do-It-Yourself Society’ is often associated with these goals: creating your own artifacts instead of buying of-the-shelf products.”12 The 1950’s and 1960’s were periods that

witnessed a cultural revolution that undoubtedly influenced the development of the

Pro-Am movement over the previous decades, most notably in Western society. Growing 11 12

Charles Leadbeater / We Think: Why mass creativity is the next big thing / www.wethinkthebook.net Gerard Fischer / Beyond “Couch Potatoes”: From Consumers to designers and active contributors / 2002

We design and do it because we love it | section I

discontent for the industrialized, mass-producing and mass consuming society was fueling the counterculture sentiment at the time. Development in communication

technology made it possible for sharing information for community initiatives and

actions. “Countercultures and political groups established their own newspapers, known as

the underground or alternative press. The media in these contexts were also coined ‘community media’, and this term referred to a diverse range of mediated forms of communication.”13

A significant aspect of the counterculture was the belief that Western society had become too dependent on the consumer culture and that people should encourage each other to

‘Do-It-Themselves’. Enthusiasts began circulating the idea that people could create things

with their own hands, without the help of paid professionals, and work together to sustain themselves and their community. An intriguing example of counterculture ethics is the magazine known as the ‘Whole Earth Catalog’. The very first issue, published in 1968,

began with this manifesto: “We are as gods and might as well get good at it. So far, remotely done power and glory — as via government, big business, formal education, church — has

succeeded to the point where gross defects obscure actual gains. In response to this dilemma and to these gains a realm of intimate, personal power is developing — power of the individual to

conduct his own education, find his own inspiration, shape his own environment, and share his

adventure with whoever is interested. Tools that aid this process are sought and promoted by the WHOLE EARTH CATALOG.”14

The magazine, headed by Stewart Brand,

had a very clear goal: to give people greater access to tools and useful information, so that they themselves could share creative

ideas and self-sufficient technologies. The

Do-It-Yourself ethics of the counterculture are very closely related to the Pro-Am

movement that we are witnessing nowadays. It isn’t strange that many of the people

involved in producing the Whole Earth

Catalog were also involved in developing

one of the earliest online communities, The Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link (WELL), 1

which was brought together by early

Nicholas W. Jankowski / Creating community with media: history, theories and scientific Investigation / 2002 / p.36 Introduction of The Whole Earth Catalog 1968 / Lee Worden / The Rise and Fall of the Whole Earth Catalogue / 2004 Figure 1 / Cover of the first issue of the Whole Earth Catalog 1969 / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Catalog

13 14

We design and do it because we love it | section I

computer-mediated communication networks. The early Pro-Am movement, inspired by counterculture ethics was crucial in the development of the Internet. Investigating this

development may also give some more insight into the development of Pro-Am activities. 2.2 Counterculture ideals: the reversionary and technophiliac tendency

How have counterculture ideals influenced development of computer-mediated

communication? The link between the counterculture of the 1950’s and 1960’s and the

rise of the Internet is one that demonstrates the significance of the early Pro-Am ethics. To investigate this link it is interesting to concentrate on some of these ideals that came from the counterculture and how they have shaped the development of early computer-

mediated communication and online interactive communities. One interesting description by Theodore Roszak discerns two traditions in utopian thinking of the counterculture: the reversionary tendency and the technophiliac tendency. The reversionary tendency propagated a return to wholesome and nature orientated ways of living, whereas the

technophiliac tendency promoted development and new technology.15 These two modes

of thought were brought together in the Whole Earth Catalog, but as time passed the technophiliac tendency set the wheels in motion for the technological and cultural revolution, which we are witnessing today.

The beginning and development of the Internet exemplifies the technophiliac tendency and it is clear to see that it has prevailed over the past few decades. The existence of

computer-linked communities was predicted by J. C. R. Licklider and Robert Taylor,

research directors for the Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), who set in motion the research that resulted in the creation of the first such

community, the ARPANET: “What will on-line interactive communities be like?” Licklider and Taylor wrote in 1968: “In most fields they will consist of geographically separated

members, sometimes grouped in small clusters and sometimes working individually. They will be communities not of common location, but of common interest...”16 The ‘communities of

common interests’ are characteristic of Pro-Am communities, people coming together to participate in conversations, collaborating in projects and sharing information and skills with one another.

2.3 Democratic principle / participation and debate

Democratization of cultural production: As a concept, ‘communities of common interest’ also demonstrate the significance of participation and debate in ‘public’ affairs, two 15 16

Theodore Roszak, From Satori to SiliconValley / 2000 Howard Rheingold / The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier / 2000

We design and do it because we love it | section I

crucial democratic principles. The growing discontent with mass media during the late 1950’s and during the 1960’s inspired many people in western society to question the

direction of democracy in cultural production, and media in particular. The increasing

commercialization and politicizing of media at the time, and more generally speaking

cultural production, reinforced the traditional consumer/producer roles. Initiatives like the Whole Earth Catalog stand as early examples of movements that countered the

influence of large organizations to steer the consumer away from ‘mindlessly consuming’, by making cultural production more open to for people to participate in. The possibilities were becoming more and more apparent to enthusiasts and activists that they could

take ‘cultural production matters’ into their own hands. This period signaled a change

in mindset of Western society, and sentiments began to emerge that were in many ways related to democratic ideologies of citizenship and participation. Developing media

production, and participation in the media production processes became a way for a larger audience to engage in ‘public connection’ through ‘public cultural production’. More people were becoming discontent with consuming and being at the ‘receiving

end’ of cultural production and as a result sought ways to participate in more personally meaningful cultural production.

In his paper, ‘The productive ‘consumer’ and the dispersed citizen,’ Nick Couldry questions what individual media consumers do “as active subjects . . . as producers of culture . . . the

point of view of the active producing cultural worker who fashions narratives, stories, objects,

and practices from myriad bits of prior cultural production”.17 Couldry observed new hybrid forms of production and consumption in new media, in which consumers take initiative

“through participation, new spaces of public connection, new spaces of mutuality”18 , and thereby

become more engaged citizens. This is an important notion that links past initiatives like the Whole Earth Catalog and new initiatives of ‘open publishing’, which has become

widespread with the advent of online publishing. New media has given even more people the possibility to become ‘productive consumers’ by interacting in production processes and becoming producers of culture. It is interesting to consider how the technological

development of new media, and the growing idea of public connection, influence the way many people think about their position as producer/consumer in society. 2.4 Technological advances and the Internet culture

How did technological advances help the start of the Pro-Am movement? In the past few

decades advances in information and communication technologies have revolutionized 17 18

Nick Couldry / The productive consumer and the dispersed citizen / 2004 Nick Couldry / The productive consumer and the dispersed citizen / 2004

We design and do it because we love it | section I

our industrialized society and helped us create a network society. The development of the

Internet has made it easier for people to communicate with each other, share information and build new ways to organize themselves.

“Technological systems are socially produced. Social production is culturally informed. Internet

is no exception. The culture of the producers of the Internet shaped the medium. These producers were, at the same time its early users.” 19 Manuel Castells also expresses the ideas of

producers and consumers, specifically in the development of the Internet. Castells does distinguish between producers/users who directly influence the technological advance of the Internet and consumer/users whose use of the new media isn’t directed at its development but does influence the evolution of the system.

The Internet was designed as a technology of free communication, as a means to

share information, stimulate technological innovation and create an environment for

community. The producers/users of the Internet are the creators of the culture of the Internet, the “set of values and beliefs informing behavior”20 . According to Castells the

Internet culture is made up of four layers: the techno-meritocratic culture, the hacker

culture, the virtual communitarian culture and the entrepreneurial culture. In these four layers it is possible to see a link to the distinction made earlier between professionals

and Pro-Am’s. In the following paragraphs the relevance of these four layers of Internet culture to the study of Pro-Am activity should become clearer.

2.5 Techno-elites, hackers, virtual communitarians and entrepreneurs: collaboration, peer review and innovation.

“The link between these cultural expressions and the technological development of the Internet is the openness of free modification of Internet software, and particularly of the source code of

software. Open distribution of the source codes allows anyone to modify the code and to develop new programs and applications, in an upward spiral of technological innovation, based on cooperation and the free-circulation of technical knowledge.”21

The collaborative development of Internet culture: The ‘openness’ that Castells speaks of

in his book, ‘The Internet Galaxy’ refers to the techno-elitist culture that is characteristic of academic studies. Technological and scientific progress are two governing principles

that drive academic study, and sharing the (acquired) knowledge and skills amongst the Manuel Castells / The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on Internet, Business and Society / 2001 / p.36 Manuel Castells / The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on Internet, Business and Society / 2001 / p.36 21 Manuel Castells / The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on Internet, Business and Society / 2001 / p.38 19 20

We design and do it because we love it | section I

academic community is seen as a way to advance the academic community as a whole.

Another important aspect of academic study is that of discussion and peer-review, which also lies at the heart of Internet culture. It is important for participants to be able to

discuss each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work and learn from criticism, and by giving criticism themselves. While the conception of the Internet was the work of techno-elitist, academic and

professional developers, the ongoing evolution of the Internet has been influenced greatly by hacker interaction and collaboration, a culture that has strived to be autonomous from academic and commercial institutions, but employs similar working methods. There are characteristics of techno-elitist involvement in Internet culture that run

through the hacker culture and this is evident when looking at one of the major hacker occupations: open source software development. Techno-elitists and hackers share the

aim to constantly develop technology and improve their skills and knowledge. The social, self-organizing and non-commercial properties of open-source software projects are

aspects that make hackers stand apart from academic and entrepreneurial technologists.

These are aspects that relate hacker culture to the virtual communitarians. While hackers

were mainly concerned with developing the technological foundation of the Internet, the communitarians were responsible for developing social forms of behavior, and the means to do so, developing such communication methods as instant messaging, chat rooms, mailing lists.

Probably the most influential and determining factor in the spreading of the Internet to more the general public, is the entrepreneurial and commercial use of the network

infrastructure, developed by the techno-elitist, hackers and communitarians. Internet

transformed business and business in-turn transformed the Internet. The basis of this entrepreneurial culture is being able to earn money with technological innovation,

new products and services, by using the Internet as a marketplace, a virtual space for

advertising and moneymaking. The new economy of the Internet embodies the opposing ethic to that of the techno-elitist, hacker and communitarian: it is about making money and doing so by capitalizing new technology and ideas.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The culture of the Internet is a culture made up of a technocratic belief in the progress of humans through technology, enacted by communities of hackers thriving on free and open technological creativity, embedded in virtual networks aimed at reinventing society and materialized by money driven entrepreneurs into the workings of the new economy.â&#x20AC;?22 22

Manuel Castells / The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on Internet, Business and Society / 2001 / p.61

We design and do it because we love it | section I

2.6 Commodification and commercialization of Internet culture

In his book ‘The Virtual Community’, Howard Rheingold questions the commercial direction the Internet has taken and how this can affect other layers of the Internet

culture. More and more media content is becoming commercial. It is being used for

advertising and being turned into commodities. The consumer society promotes the belief

that “the way to be is to buy”23 and it shifts peoples attention away from public engagement.

The increasing commodification of computer-mediated communication is also making it increasingly difficult for people to gain access to virtual spaces and participate in online activities. The main objective of commercial discourse is to keep people interested and wanting more, and this is jeopardizing rational and critical exchange of ideas.

Revival of the counterculture ethics in (graphic) design: These commercial developments in Internet culture, have lead a number of academics and professionals in related fields

to look critically at the commercial uses of the Internet. One field that is closely related

to the developments in Internet activity, and to a large extent also the commercialization of Internet, is graphic design. As mentioned in the introduction of this paper a group of

graphic designers proposed and signed a manifesto a couple of years ago, the ‘First Things First Manifesto 2000’, stating among other things that “Commercial work has always paid the bills, but many graphic designers have now let it become, in large measure, what graphic designers do.”24 These graphic designers echo a similar call from 1964 from graphic

designer Ken Garland and 21 other designers, who published the ‘First Things First Manifesto 1964’.

“We, the undersigned, are graphic designers, photographers and students who have been brought

up in a world in which techniques and apparatus of advertising have persistently been presented to us as the most lucrative, effective and desirable means of using our talents. We have been

bombarded with publications devoted to this belief, applauding the work of those who have

flogged their skill and imagination to sell such things as cat food, stomach powders, detergents,

hair restorer, striped toothpaste, aftershave lotion, beforeshave lotion, slimming diets, fattening diets, deodorants, fizzy water, cigarettes, roll-ons, pull-ons and slip on’s”25

A New Wave: Similar to the sentiment of the emerging counterculture of the 1960’s

there seems to be a growing uneasiness among both cultural producers and consumers

nowadays. The growing influence of commercial production and consumerism, stimulated for a great deal through the commercial Internet culture, seems to stand uncontested. Howard Rheingold / In: The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier / 2000 First Things First Manifesto 2000 / in: Looking Closer Four: Critical Writings on Graphic Design / 2000 / p. 5+6 25 Ken Garland / First Things First Manifesto / 1964 / http://www.kengarland.co.uk/ 23 24

We design and do it because we love it | section I

Among those concerned are many designers from various fields of design, that have

heard the message of the First Things First manifestos of 1964 and 2000, and have also

witnessed the constant commercialization of design. There is a growing need in design for a shift in priorities, from commercial to more socio-cultural and environmental causes.

In this investigation it is becoming apparent that Pro-Am designers are taking charge in making this shift happen.

3. MAKING DESIGN MORE ‘USEFUL, LASTING AND DEMOCRATIC’ 3.1 Massive Change: design is everywhere

There are massive changes sweeping through our ‘global’ society. Many of these changes Figure 2 / Adbusters campaign / “Buy Nothing Day is an altruist campaign created by Adbusters, a magazine concerned about the erosion of physical and cultural environments by commercial forces, and is promoting to switch off from shopping and tune back into life.” www.benettontalk.com/2006/11/ For more images and information visit the Adbusters website: http://adbusters.org/metas/eco/bnd/

We design and do it because we love it | section I

have been brought about by the abilities and shortcomings of design, in the broadest

sense: from the design of computer-mediated communication to the design of inner-city infrastructure, from the design of airplanes to the design of newspapers. In his book,

Massive Change, Bruce Mao and the Institute Without Boundaries give a compelling

view of the importance of design in our society. Once we become conscious that design is

everywhere, in all that is man-made, then we begin to see how we use design, interact and even contribute to it.

To come back to the example of the Whole Earth Catalog, another interesting aspect

of this alternative, counterculture magazine is the way it was produced. In the beginning (1968) mainly enthusiasts who had little design experience produced the magazine.

The designer’s inexperience gave the catalogue its DIY character, with slightly amateur

typesetting and layout.26 It was a non-profit magazine and therefore it had to be produced

at low cost, meaning that the participants would be collaborating for reasons other than monetary. The tools for making the magazine where not difficult to use, and people collaborated on both the design and content to create a cohesive whole.

The Whole Earth Catalog demonstrates the changing, ‘more useful, lasting and

democratic’ role graphic design can play in cultural production. It clarifies the point that graphic design should not be seen as an autonomous process but as a multidisciplinary process, combining disciplines such as journalism, philosophy, anthropology, creative writing, environmental studies and many more. Graphic designers should be able to think critically and use their skills to communicate through visual means, and

organize collaboration in the design process. From a more practical point of view, the

catalogue’s DIY features of low-cost, open publishing, slightly amateur graphic design and collaborative creativity that relate to the Pro-Am ethics that Charles Leadbeater

speaks of is his paper, ‘We Think’. Graphic design has become increasingly accessible for more people who wish to practice it, thanks to greater access to design tools/software, skills and knowledge. Pro-Am graphic designers are also starting to take the stage,

showing initiative to break through the overemphasized commercial uses of graphic

design. Starting open-source typography development projects, designing and planning

alternative small exhibitions and workshops. The more you look for these Pro-Am graphic design projects, the more you find. As a whole the Pro-Am movement is proving to be a force to be reckoned with, in graphic design, and most notably in other fields of design. It’s becoming the counterculture of the 21st century. 26

Virginia Postrel, Do it yourself, in: Business Week, April 2007 / http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/apr2007/

We design and do it because we love it | section I

The emerging participation culture is the context that is defining the development of the design culture, similar to the Internet culture. As mentioned before it is becoming easier

for people to participate in design and share their work and ideas with other people. The network society, which Manuel Castells speaks of, makes much of this possible, and as he points out the participatory and collaborative way of thinking in Internet culture is transcending into other levels and fields of society. Design culture is being influenced

greatly by participatory and collaborative culture of the Internet, and it is the Pro-Am movement that seems to be its driving force.

3.2 The Pro-Am movement: engaged and designing

How have the Pro-Ams revolutionized the various fields of design? “Pro-Am’s are more

than a new exotic social species of do-it-yourself enthusiasts. They bring wider benefits to society:

they help build communities, drive innovation, sustain democracy, empower poorer communities and contribute to culture. Henry Ford’s model of organisation was built on the new character of the factory worker. Wikipedia, Linux and their like are substantially built by and for the ProAm.”27 3

An interesting example of a Pro-Am online community is the website of ‘MAKE

Magazine’28 . The official Make magazine

can be seen as a contemporary version of the Whole Earth Catalog, and is also available

as a printed version. The website is a central meeting point for many professional and

Pro-Am ‘makers’, with a community forum

and a blog that gives an overview of dozens of design related projects, varying from photography to software development,

arts & crafts to music. Pro-Am enthusiasts are able to publish photos, videos, and

stories about their work and viewers are

able to respond and review the work. The

contributors/users have organized themselves, with the help of the chief editors, (web)

designers and programmers, and created a virtual community and a virtual space in which they can participate and collaborate on design related projects.

Charles Leadbeater / We Think: Why mass creativity is the next big thing / www.wethinkthebook.net www.makezine.com Figure 3 / Cover of Make 11 / http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2007/08/tiny_cars.html

27 28

We design and do it because we love it | section I

“Pro-Am’s thrive in communities, where they learn to play with, compete against and perform to others. The volunteer organizations that sustain Pro-Am’s also help to generate social

capital, lasting relationships and friendships that help to provide the social glue and basis for

cooperation.”29 The Pro-Am community, as can be seen on a website like makezine.com, is

very diverse. They show a tremendous amount of creative work and the ability to organize themselves.

In some fields of design the success of Pro-Am projects and initiatives challenge

professional design work. This is becoming more and more evident in fields such as open

source software development, a multidisciplinary field that integrates for example graphic design, programming, and interaction design. Competing in the software industry is

tough business, especially when facing mega organization like Microsoft and Adobe.

Open source projects such as the operating system of Linux30 and collective open source

software projects like sorceforge.net31 demonstrate that it is possible to develop software that is free for autonomous users.

In graphic design, for example, there is also a growing trend of Pro-Am activity and

involvement, however it isn’t a highly acknowledged trend and examples are not very

common. One of the questions that inspired this research is what kind of designers, and

design projects, employ similar collaborative design methods in the creative process. It is interesting to investigate what defines collaborative design and how models, such as the

‘open source’ model, can apply to other fields of design. In the following sections the aim is to concentrate on collaborative design projects and methods developed to stimulate professional, Pro-Am and amateur collaboration in the creative process.

Charles Leadbeater / We Think: Why mass creativity is the next big thing / www.wethinkthebook.net http://www.linux.com/ 31 http://sourceforge.net/ 29 30

We design and do it because we love it | section II

SECTION II / LEARNING FROM THE PRO-AM WORK ETHICS /

Participation and collaboration in the design process One of the underlying motives of this investigation is to determine the role of

professional designers in the evolving design culture. In the Items article discussed previously Leadbeater and Kuilman propagated that Pro-Am’s are challenging the

position of the professional designers by showing they are able to organize themselves

effectively and create work at a professional level. The greater access to digital design tools such as Photoshop, Flash (animation software), and the wide availability of tutorials to

learn practical design skills, has given design enthusiasts an unprecedented opportunity to

practice in this field. Computer- mediated communication has also made it easier for ProAm designers to communicate with each other and participate in the design process.

However, looking at for example graphic design there are many aspects of design work that require more than practical design skills. “The graphic designer traditionally behaved as the representative of the audience. Only a trained and competent graphic designer could

make the client’s vision accessible to the prospective audience by re-communicating our common cultural signs and symbols in new visual contexts.”32 Professional graphic designers are

experienced in communicating ideas to an audience and persuading a desired response, and have the intrinsic knowledge of visual language to be able to do so. Many design

critics believe that this socio-cultural insight and ability to use visual language to create

meaningful design is what gives professional graphic designers the ability to distinguish themselves. Professional designers in general also should have experience in managing

the different stages of a design process and the ability to collaborate with other designers to share the creative process. These are important characteristics of being a professional

and skilled designer, and they are also aspects that can help designers approach the design process from a ‘meta’ level. In this context the term ‘meta’ means “going beyond or higher,

transcending: used to form terms designating an area of study whose purpose is to examine the nature, assumptions, structure, etc. of a (specified) field [metalinguistics, metacriticism]” 33.

After investigating the concept of Pro-Am’s and the context in which they have developed as an influential movement in design culture the focus will turn to their methods of

working and organizing the design process. By looking at the Pro-Am ‘open’ approach to the design process, many links can be made to similar collaborative design methods

described in other academic studies. An important aspect to discuss in this section is what 32 33

Giovanni Aneceshi / ‘Visibility in Progress’ / 1996 / p. 8-9 Webster’s New World Dictionary / Third College Edition / Simon & Schuster / 1988

We design and do it because we love it | section II

distinguishes the Pro-Am approach and whether the Pro-Am approach can enhance

the collaborative design process. Another important question is how the professional designers can direct this collaboration between professional, Pro-Am and amateur

designers in the design process, and how the professional designer can approach this

from a ‘meta’ perspective. What are important elements that could be adopted for the organization of a collaborative design project?

4. ‘Open organizations’ and the Pro-Am work ethic To illustrate the work ethic of Pro-Am’s it is useful to look at a project in which their

open organization and ‘open source’ approach is most recognizable. Wikipedia, the free

online encyclopedia, is a website that relies on the contribution of voluntary users (a mix of professionals, Pro-Am’s and amateurs) to create, publish, review and edit texts for its immense collaborative online ‘well’ of information. 4.1 Wiki Wiki

According to Wikipedia.org, Ward Cunningham developed the first wiki in 199434 ,

called WikiWikiWeb. A wiki is usually a web-based medium built up of a network of

linked information that can be edited by anyone who has access to it. Wiki’s develop as

more people contribute articles and edit the texts that are posted, and all this information can be linked to create a network of information. Wikipedia35 started on January 15

2001, and in the first four years it attracted millions of contributions, in many different

languages. There are no barriers to entry; everyone who is interested can contribute to the collective ongoing creative process. This is one of the factors that determined the success

of Wikipedia, but this democratic approach is also a point that has been criticized heavily for being untrustworthy.

There are many people, both amateur and professional, who contribute to Wikipedia.

Amateur involvement and the self-governing characteristic of Wikipedia often give critics the idea that there is no quality control and that the website is prone to be misused, for

self-promotion or obstruction of information, to name but a few abuses. These criticisms

are fundamental questions in the debate about the trustworthiness of online participation. However, the open approach to Wikipedia is not as open as it seems at first. There is a very intricate system of self-organization that underlies the professional and amateur collaboration. 34 35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki www.wikipedia.org

We design and do it because we love it | section II

One of the fundamental tools of Wikipedia is the system of peer-review, a method widely used in academic and scientific study. It allows participants to judge the quality of each

other’s work and gives them the possibility to edit and make changes wherever necessary. When someone contributes a text they also join the Wikipedia community and thereby also are asked to comply with the websites codes of conduct. These norms and values

keep the community of contributors and reviewers working towards the common goal: to

provide widely accessible, accurate information. The committed and longtime contributors serve as critical reviewers and enforce these codes of conduct and thereby acquire higher

status in the community. Contribution, peer review and recognition for this participation are integral aspects that keep up the self-governing structure of Wikipedia. 4.2 The working ethics of Pro-Am’s: The eight rules of open organization

What are the methods that make this approach successful? It is interesting to note that Charles Leadbeater has taken a similar open approach to writing his new book, We

Think. By publishing early versions of his writing on his website36, he invited viewers

to give their ideas and comments on his writings, thereby becoming participants in his

creative thinking and writing process. In his book he also discusses the ‘eight rules of open organization’, which Pro-Am’s employ in their creative endeavors: 1. A kernel to get things going...

Working on a collaborative project is made easier if there is some work to begin with, or

to continue working on. A kernel could be the beginning of a beautiful plant if nurtured and given the right conditions to grow. In design projects a ‘kernel’ could be the early

stages of a software program, the first pages of a wiki, the first lines of an interactive story; basically the beginning of any kind of collaborative project one can imagine. 2. Motivate and attract contributors...

When someone, or a group, develops this initial ‘kernel’ there have to be people motivated

to participate and further develop the project. Therefore it is important to inspire potential

contributors with the initial project idea, and create a good ‘environment’ to work, whether it is real or virtual. An important aspect of working together is creating community,

through shared values, norms and goals. Participants also want to be recognized and often contribute to an ‘openly’ organized (design) project to express their ideas and show their skills, thereby acquiring a status in the project and community.

Charles Leadbeater / We Think: Why mass creativity is the next big thing / www.wethinkthebook.net

We design and do it because we love it | section II

3. Crowds need meeting places…

A working community needs a real and/or virtual space to meet and share ideas,

information, and tools, also to see the progress of the project. The collaborative work

results in collective design, which is open for people to use and adapt as a (re)source, and is governed by shared/common ownership. 4. Self-distribution of labour…

One of the integral elements of ‘open’ collaboration is that the participants who contribute do so on their own free will. Instead of earning money with the work they carry out,

the participants are driven by other motives, such as recognition from the community.

There are also many different types of contributors, depending also on the type of project. Some participants are involved in usability testing; others review the software and pick

out mistakes; others rewriting the code; some design the interface or plan the interaction design. All constructive contribution helps in the evolution of the project and its

collaborative organization. The characteristic of open organizations is that the distribution of labor is determined by participants and based on their interests, skills and motivation, and not by project managers or a board of directors. 5. Encourage people to build on your ideas...

Open organization is about constantly developing the project through collaboration; by writing, designing, programming, reviewing, discussing, and having others constantly build on the foundation of work done by other participants. This is the basis for an

innovative work method: constantly creating, testing, evaluating and redeveloping. In

collaborations this can only be accomplished through dialogue, similar to methods of peer review in academic research. 6. Think Lego...

To bring all these participants together, and to make their contributions fit together, ‘open’ organizations must have a structure in place that makes the project a cohesive whole.

A method that has been used often in open organizations is splitting the collaborative project into modules, which can develop separately and can be brought together to

function as one. A ‘design team’ is needed to organize the structure of the modules on a

‘meta’ level, so that other contributors can concentrate on the more specific tasks in their module.

We design and do it because we love it | section II

7. Conversational leaders...

As opposed to the concept of the corporate leader, many open organizations are guided by leaders who do not exert executive power over decision-making. Often these leaders are the creators of the open organization/project and have built the basis of the project and

working community; the ‘kernel’ and the norms/values that help the organization of the

project and the way people interact with one another. The creators of an open organization allow for the participants to build on their foundation, and use the self-governing structure to resolve issues and move forward. 8. The New Model…

The characteristics of open organization are not new; in the past people have benefited from common ownership in agriculture, used peer-review methods in academic study, employed democratic methods in governing. The revolutionary aspect of the open

organization is the way these ingredients have been brought together in the collaborative ‘open source’ approach to the creative process.

4.3 ‘Open organizations’ and the Pro-Am designer

What is the importance of design in open organizations, and vice versa? Charles

Leadbeater has signaled the beginning of the new era of ‘open organization’, and he is not alone in his quest to investigate the influence this development is having on our

constantly innovating and evolving society. Leadbeater concentrates on examples of such

open and collaborative, Pro-Am driven organizations but doesn’t seem to specify the role design plays in these organization and the creative process. If we look again at the views of Bruce Mao and the Institute without Boundaries, about the importance of design

in our daily lives, then it also becomes evident that design plays a pivotal role in ‘open organizations’, and vice versa.

“Not since the age of invention have so many new products, processes and services become

available to the public. What we see over the last hundred and fifty years, and in a dramatically accelerated pace over the last fifty, is that design is changing its place in the order of things.

Design is evolving from its position of relative insignificance within business (and the larger

envelop of nature), to become the biggest project of all. Even life itself has fallen (or is falling) to the power and possibility of design. Empowered as such, we have a responsibility to address the new set of questions that go along with that power.”37

Bruce Mao & Jennifer Leonard / Massive Change / 2004

We design and do it because we love it | section II

Design is in essence a very broad term, a diverse field and an interdependent discipline. This view is becoming increasingly common in design discourse and practice. Design research and practice has contributed to the developments in ‘open source’ styles of working, but in return it can also learn and evolve from the developments in open

organization methods. Now that creativity and the creative process have become more open to a larger public, including amateurs, and that collaboration between amateurs

and professionals is becoming commonplace, design has to find ways to bring together initiatives and direct the process to a common and constructive goal. 5. COLLABORATION IN DESIGN PROCESSES More often these days, skilled, professional designers will be taking on additional roles in the design culture and will be guiding those enthusiastic, though less skilled, participants through the design process. This will require the skilled designers to approach the design process from a ‘meta’ level, to be able to structure and organize the design process. New media are empowering consumers/users/viewers to play a more active role in design

production, and skilled/professional designers are starting to develop new ways to direct collaboration in design, by providing information and tools necessary for designing;

encouraging and leading the participants to learn and create meaningful contributions to

the design process. This raises the question how creative collaboration in design processes can be organized more constructively.

The following chapter will give some insight to a number of academic approaches to collaborative design, showing a striking similarity to the rules of ‘open organization’

proposed by Charles Leadbeater. Giving a more in-depth view of collaborative design will offer some alternative views concerning possible roles of the professional and the Pro-Am in design processes, and more specifically how the collaborative methods may be applied to (graphic) design processes.

5.1 Defining collaborative design

An academic approach to collaborative design: At the ‘Center for Lifelong Learning and Design’ Professor Gerard Fischer is leading research for investigating interdisciplinary methods of collaboration in creative processes. Fischer’s research concentrates on the exploration of “new computational media based on fundamental aspects of how we think,

create, work, learn and collaborate”.38 An important aspect of the research is to see how 38

Gerard Fischer / Beyond “Couch Potatoes”: From Consumers to designers and active contributors / 2002

We design and do it because we love it | section II

new technologies not only help in making established cognitive tasks easier but also how they can be used to deal with new tasks in alternative ways. Fischer expresses

that “computational media offer the possibilities and the potential to allow people to express themselves and create personally meaningful environments”.39 Social and technical

infrastructures can be developed to stimulate new forms of collaboration between

people in their creative endeavors, allowing them to act as designers and become the owners of design problems.

What defines a designer if everyone can be one? Why would people want to be designers? How could people become designers? In his paper, Beyond Couch Potatoes, Fischer

presents the designer very broadly as “a person who wants to act as an active participant and

contributor in personally meaningful activities”. One of the fundamental standpoints Fischer defends in his research is that most people want to be and act as designers. People no

longer want to be mere users, consumers or spectators, they want to participate in debate, contribute to design and express themselves. This standpoint underlines the growing trend that design processes are becoming much more inclusive and that innovative

computational media have given people greater access to tools. In his paper Fischer

defines these ‘design’ tools as ‘convivial tools’, which “allow users to invest the world with their meaning, to enrich the environment with the fruits of their vision and to use them for

the accomplishment of a purpose they have chosen.”40 More than other media technologies,

computational media have given people greater access to convivial tools, thereby making creative processes more open to a wider public.

What is understood by the term design? What are the main approaches relating to

collaborative design? “Design is better defined today as an inquiry and experimentation in the activity of “making”. That is, design is conceived as a humanistic enterprise in which the subject

matter is not fixed [Buchanan & Margolin, 1995], and is meant to envision possibilities (“how things might be”) and elaborate them in order to enable people to experience the world in more and richer ways [Maturana, 1997].”41

This definition indicates that design is an active and evolving process, requiring time

to develop. According to Fischer in all design processes there are two basic stages that

can be distinguished: ‘design time’ and ‘use time’. During ‘design time’ developers create the context; for example the design environment, tools, systems of communication. At

‘use time’ users are shown the design and use the design, which has been created during Gerard Fischer / Beyond “Couch Potatoes”: From Consumers to designers and active contributors / 2002 Ivan Illich / Tools for Conviviality / 1973 / http://clevercycles.com/tools_for_conviviality/ 41 Elisa Giaccardi and Gerard Fischer / Creativity and Evolution / 2005 / p.2 39 40

We design and do it because we love it | section II

‘design time’. Often this ‘use time’ design does not fit the needs of the user and then need

to be modified. The ‘design time’ and ‘use time’ perspective indicates two main approaches

to deal with this issue: User-centered design and participatory design. In both approaches the essential condition is that the design is ‘underdesigned’ in order to leave room for improvement and user involvement.

User-centered design42 involves users in the design time stage of the design process,

however, the developers concentrate on issues of usability and do not give the users

opportunity to play an active role in creative development. In participatory design43 the

users are more directly involved in the creative process and stimulated by the developers

to be co-designers, making the design more responsive to the users needs. Meta-design44

is a more collaborative design approach, which creates more open context for the users to take on the role of a designer and contribute their own ideas and creativity in the design process. It is this collaborative approach that distinguishes meta-design from the other interactive design approaches, and makes it interesting for the investigation of design

methods that could benefit professional and Pro-Am collaboration in design projects. 5.2 Meta-design: Designing the design

How has the concept of meta-design developed? What are the most important

characteristics of meta-design? Working together with Gerard Fischer, Elisa Giaccardi

has given an overview of conceptions about meta-design in her paper, ‘Meta-design as an Emergent Design Culture’. “Historically, since the 1960s, the term meta-design has been used

to focus on the possibilities of ‘designing the design’.”45 This earlier conception of meta-design

exemplifies the idea of a ‘meta’ approach, taking an overhead view of the design process and investigating / structuring / designing it. In the mid eighties, at the time when

computer-mediated communication was becoming more advanced Gene Youngblood

wrote, in ‘Meta-design: Toward a Postmodernism of Reconstruction’, “meta-design deals

with the creation of context rather than content; it is a mode of integrating systems and setting

actions in order to create environments in which people may cultivate ‘creative conversations’ and take control of the context of their cultural and aesthetic production.”46

Giaccardi explains that meta-design has been constantly developing as a theoretical

concept and also as a practical methodology. “The development of the notion of meta-design can be categorized as critical and reflexive thinking about the boundaries and scope of design,

aimed at coping with the complexity of natural human interaction made tangible by technology. Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. / User-Centered System Design / 1986 Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. / Participatory Design: Principles and Practices / 1993 44 Fischer, G., & Scharff, E / Meta-Design—Design for Designers / 2000 / pp. 396-405. 45 Elisa Giaccardi / Metadesign as an Emergent Design Culture / 2005 / p.343 46 Gene Youngblood / Meta-design: Toward a Postmodernism of Reconstruction / 42 43

We design and do it because we love it | section II

Meta-design seeks to transform this complexity into an opportunity for new forms of creativity and sociability.”47

5.3 SER Process Model: A process model for collaborative design

A distinctive aspect of meta-design research has been the seeding, evolutionary growth,

and re-seeding (SER) process model. This particular model visualizes the methodology for “encouraging designers to conceptualize their activity as meta-design, thereby supporting users

as designers in their own right, rather than restricting them to being passive consumers.”48 The model is constructed to evolve a ‘seed’ design over time, in a collaborative environment, during which there is planned activity initiated by the developers and continued

together with participants, followed by an evaluation and review of the developing ‘seed’ design. Drawing conclusions from evaluation and reviews help developers organize and restructure the ‘seed’ design and ‘re-seed’ it by returning the collaborative design to the

collective information space for the participants to develop further. Figure (4) visualizes

the evolutionary and collaborative process of the SER process model and the interaction

between the developers and the participants. The important thing to remember is that the participants can have different backgrounds, not necessarily being professional designers themselves. In this way Pro-Am and amateur designers are stimulated to participate in

the design process and are directed during the development of the design process with the help of developers.

evolved information space

reseeded information space

ED I

seeded information space

SE ED IN G

EVOLUTIONARY GROWTH

time key D developers U users

Elisa Giaccardi / Metadesign as an Emergent Design Culture / 2005 / p.343 Gerard Fischer / Meta-design: Beyond User-Centered and Participatory design / 2003 / p. 2 Figure 4 / Seeding, Evolutionary Growth and Reseeding (SER) Process Model (Fischer & Ostwald, 2000)

47 48

We design and do it because we love it | section II

5.4 Application of meta-design in art and design processes

“The connections between meta-design, telematic culture and interactive art are significant and based on a similar call for the expansion of human creativity. Some overlaps, in particular, are

interesting and can be pointed out as further indications of how meta-design actually expresses

the emergence of a new culture, somehow at the convergence of art and design.”49 In interactive art and design projects meta-design methods, such as the SER process model, can help

create a working context, which stimulates ‘users’ to create content. Instead of giving the user the object of art or design, meta-design methods provide tools with which the user can create and act as designers.

An example of a meta-design environment and user created design/content: Second Life is an online 3D virtual world, developed by Linden Research, which allows participants

to create virtual personalities (avatars) and interact with other people in the virtual setting through their avatars. The ‘residents’ of this virtual world can also create items using

modeling tools and trade their work for virtual money, called the ‘Linden Dollar’. The

developers of Second Life have created a context in which participants can create content and express themselves, sometimes in ways that wouldn’t be possible in the ‘real’ world.

Second Life exemplifies the concept of meta-design. The developers have approached the

design of Second Life from a ‘meta’ level, and instead of creating content and scenarios they have created the framework and tools for participants to create there own creative content. 5

Elisa Giaccardi / Metadesign as an Emergent Design Culture / 2005 / p.347 Figure 5 / Creating my avatar in Second Life / 49

We design and do it because we love it | section II

6. EXAMPLE OF META-DESIGN METHODS IN TWO GRAPHIC DESIGN PROJECTS: ‘DE DIENST’ AND ‘DO’

Graphic design projects that have stimulated and directed collaboration in the design

process: To elaborate on the example of a meta-design environment previously mentioned there are two other design projects that apply meta-design methods. These projects

demonstrate approaches to collaborative design that will be important to consider more closely to support the following section of this investigation, namely for ‘envisaging an open, collaborative design initiative.’

6.1 ‘de Dienst’: Are democracy and art compatible? “The Dutch government had 160 thousand euros to spend on an artwork for their government building ‘het Logement’. That is exactly one-euro cent per Dutchman. With my project each Dutchman will have the opportunity to say something with their small contribution.”50

In June 2002 Martijn Engelbregt was invited by the Dutch government to conceive and create an artwork for the newly renovated government building ‘het Logement van de

Tweede Kamer’. Engelbregt established ‘de Dienst’ (translated: the Service), an art/design/ research project that would investigate the relationship between democracy and art. ‘de Dienst’ thereby developed a collaborative framework to allow for a democratic creative

process, which aimed to yield a democratic artwork. In April 2004 ‘de Dienst’ began to invite people through web pages, emails and questionnaires to comment and vote on

proposed artworks using an online voting system. People were also invited to propose

work of their own and were given the opportunity to discuss their ideas and vote on all

the artworks using the website ‘www.de-dienst.nl’. After 9 months of intense interaction

between ‘de Dienst’ and ‘the participants’ 551 artworks were collected and voted on during 6 election rounds. Nine artworks were eventually selected and in March 2006 they were presented in ‘Het Logement’.

The question whether art and democracy are compatible with each other was an

underlying question that preoccupied ‘de Dienst’ for over three years. Engelbregt’s motivation for researching the possibility, or impossibility, of combining art and

democracy derived from his interest to involve people in his artwork. In many of

Engelbregt’s art/design projects the viewers become participants in the artwork, sometime 50

Robert van Gijssel / Interview with Martijn Engelbregt: ‘Het gaat me om de zoektocht’ / Volkskrant / 04.06.2004

We design and do it because we love it | section II

even in the creative process itself. ‘de Dienst’ is a unique example of an interactive art and design project that demonstrates how the creative process could be made more democratic, allowing more open debate, voting and participation.

“I know that democracy and art lie miles apart but my project ‘de Dienst’ for the Dutch

government building is more than a question whether most votes count. For me it’s about searching for the ideal work, and how it comes about.”51

How did the ideal work come about? By stimulating more active participation Engelbregt democratized the creative process and made collaboration possible. Many Dutch citizens from all ‘walks of life’ proposed artworks and gave their votes and comments on each

other’s work. It didn’t matter if the participants were artists or psychologists, professionals or amateurs; everyone had the opportunity to propose their own artwork or concept.

One of the most important aspects of the project was that people would interact and contribute, thereby developing the project together.

This particular project exemplifies how an art and design project has been organized to include professional, Pro-Am and amateur participation. Instead of creating an

autonomous artwork Engelbregt wanted to give every Dutch citizen the possibility to

contribute and become part of the creative process. Engelbregt developed the working

context for the project: the project goals, the rules of participation and a means for people to contribute. To give people an idea what they could contribute Engelbregt proposed a couple of artworks himself; a ‘kernel’ to kick off the project, similar to a ‘seed’ in the

SER process model discussed previously. With the project structure and some initial art propositions in place Engelbregt started a campaign to rally participants.

By placing advertisements in the newspaper, organizing expositions, giving lectures/

seminars, and sending press releases Engelbregt was able to attract quite some attention to his project. The website forum ‘dedienst.nl’ served as the virtual space where people

could propose their own artwork, post reactions to other people’s work and vote for the propositions they admired the most. The website was continuously evolving during the

one year period, after which there were final rounds of voting, which culminated in the

selection of 9 artworks to be placed in the government building. Engelbregt’s book ‘Dit

is Nederland’ gives a very detailed overview of the process of ‘de Dienst’, including all the 552 proposed artworks and a selection of the online discussions that took place. 51

Robert van Gijssel / Interview with Martijn Engelbregt: ‘Het gaat me om de zoektocht’ / Volkskrant / 04.06.2004

We design and do it because we love it | section II

Figure 6 / From left to right - top to bottom / ‘de Dienstbode’: newspaper produced by Martijn Engelbregt about ‘de Dienst / ‘de Dienst’: Engelbregt’s office in the government building ‘Het Logement van de Tweede Kamer’ / ‘de Dienstcatalogus’: catalog containing the process of ‘de Dienst’ and all the artworks proposed / Picture of Martijn Engelbregt / ‘de Dienstcatalogus’: a spread from the catalog showing a number of proposed artworks, descriptions and comments.

We design and do it because we love it | section II

Was the project successful in fostering collaboration? By creating a working context for

other designers, artists and enthusiasts to contribute Engelbregt has shown how an artist/ designer can approach the design process from a ‘meta’ level. There were no barriers to participate in the project, every Dutch citizen was able to contribute to the discussion about artworks, and propose their own work. Joke Hermes, a prominent academic

writer on the subject of popular culture studies, discusses the political effectiveness of

Engelbregts work in an article52 for a Dutch art magazine ‘OPEN’. In her article she gives

a number of criticisms concerning Engelbregt’s way of working and specifically about

‘de Dienst’. Hermes critically questions how democratic the process of ‘de Dienst’ was

and whether his art project as a whole actually helped the public to form opinions and stimulate the democratic process.

What kind of collaboration did ‘de Dienst’ stimulate? Eventually ‘de Dienst’ received 552 artwork proposals, 18.986 reactions to the proposed artworks and 74,638 votes.53 Max Bruinsma, design critic and writer for the Dutch design magazine ‘ITEMS’, also gave

some views about Engelbregt and ‘de Dienst. In his opinion, Engelbregt has given the

Dutch public a way to confront the government and engage in public matters. Bruinsma regards ‘de Dienst’ as an art project that provokes the participants to contribute, who

in turn provoke the public with their views. Evidence of this can be seen when looking

through ‘de Dienstcatalogus’. The artworks that were proposed by the participants and the opinions given in the forum discussions capture how people think about art, and public issues.54

The collaboration in ‘de Dienst’ was not on a ‘design’ level; participating artists were

not collaborating to develop a gigantic painting or sculpture, for example. The project developed by multidisciplinary collaboration, evolving by contributions from many

different participants, with diverse backgrounds. Much of the collaboration consisted

of discussion, by reviewing and criticizing ideas and proposals on the web forum of ‘de

Dienst’. As a whole, the project seems to be much more than an artwork made by Martijn Engelbregt. Much like an open organization like Wikipedia, ‘de Dienst’ is the result

of a ‘seed’, an initial concept and organization conceived by Engelbregt, that has been

shaped by the many participants, which has evolved through their collaboration, constant evaluation and new contributions.

Joke Hermes / ‘Gevangen in Ongemak’ / OPEN 10 / 2006 Martijn Engelbregt / Dit Is Nederland / Valiz / 2006 54 Max Bruinsma / In discussie met de openbare mening / OPEN 11 / 2006 52 53

We design and do it because we love it | section II

6.2 ‘do’: the ever-changing brand that depends on what you do “A new type of brand was developed and experimented with at communications agency

KesselsKramer. It continues on its mission to inspire and challenge people today. It’s a brand that remains incomplete. It requires the active involvement of people. Without participation, this

brand is nothing. It requires people to take action and actually do something. This brand will

never do it all for the consumer. It seeks to treat people with respect and demand the use of their brains and creativity.”55

The ‘do’ brand philosophy was established first; therefore the brand could be associated

to many different kinds of products. At the heart of the brand philosophy is the idea that active-participation is required from the consumer, by using the ‘do’ brand to be creative and make something new and (personally) meaningful. The common ownership and

use of the ‘do’ logo represents the idea that people can make things personal and share

their experience, ideas and work. The initial brand designs, like the ‘house style’, are also

meant to communicate the philosophy of ‘do’ and start a dialogue with people and inspire them to participate and contribute.

“The do mentality is the punk rock do-it-yourself attitude, a rejection of passive consumption

in favor of playfulness and interactivity”.56 An interesting example that demonstrates this

‘do’ mentality is the seminar focusing on the meaning of English words, given at the art & design academy St. Lucas in Boxtel, the Netherlands. After explaining the ‘do’ brand

philosophy each student was given an empty-paged book with the ‘do’ logo stamped on it, together with an English word; ‘do large’, ‘do sweater’, ‘do fuzzy’, ‘do lounge’, ‘do expert’. The students were given two days to come up with creative ways to give meaning to the

English words, using the book. The students showed very diverse and innovative ways of

approaching words and exploring the meaning these words can have. In this way ‘do’ also showed its involved and collaborative approach to teaching, by giving students a way to

contribute to a collective process, and express their own creative ideas. At the end of the seminar the ‘do’ books were exhibited as a collective project at Art Book in Amsterdam. How does this ‘interactive brand’ demonstrate the possibilities of the meta-design approach? “Each and any time ‘do’ holds a gathering, the audience is always invited to

participate in a way that makes their brains sweat.”57 The ‘do’ approach relates closely to

the collaborative methods proposed by meta-design researchers. The developers of the KesselsKramer / One hundred and one things to do / BIS publishers / 2006 Naomi Klein / The Financial Times / May 29 / 2001 57 KesselsKramer / One hundred and one things to do / BIS publishers / 2006 55 56

We design and do it because we love it | section II

Figure 7 / From left to right - top to bottom / ‘do Book’: Collaborative design project with students from Art & Design school in Boxtel, 1997 / ‘do Connect’ & ‘do Search’: examples of student interpretations and creative visualizations of English words using ‘do Books’ / ‘do Book’ exhibition: presentation of the project at Art Book in Amsterdam.

We design and do it because we love it | section II

’do’ initiative have created a collaborative context in which people can be creative and

express themselves. The developers have set up the creative ‘infrastructure’ of the project, the brand philosophy, the commonly applicable ‘house style’ that can be used freely by

participants to develop new ‘do’ products, services and other initiatives. In this way the contributors are constantly using the brand and evolving it over time and ultimately it

is the ‘do’ brand that brings it all together. In these ways the ‘do’ approach resembles the

method of seeding, evolutionary growth and re-seeding, typical of meta-design. To further study the ‘do’ concept KesselsKramer have made a compelling overview of ‘do’ design

initiatives in their book, ‘One hundred and one things to do.’ Viewing the collaborative

design projects in this book as a collective work also demonstrates the idea that the project is on-going and evolving over time, which is one of the main features of the ‘seeding, evolutionary growth and reseeding’ meta-design approach.

6.3 Collaborative design: a significant approach for graphic design?

What is the significance of ‘de Dienst’ and ‘do’ as an example of collaborative (graphic) design? These two collaborative graphic design projects demonstrate how graphic

designers can use collaborative methods to make the design process more inclusive

and user created; as is being studied by meta-design research labs, such as Lab[au]58 in Brussels and ‘Center for Lifelong Learning and Design’59 in Denver. The SER process

model is a model that can be adopted by developers to approach a creative/design process

from a ‘meta’ level, in order to develop a context in which the user becomes involved in the creative process and can create (personally) meaningful content.

For meta-design research the study of these two graphic design projects could be

interesting, especially with respect to the research being conducted by Elisa Giaccardi, regarding the connections between meta-design and the newly emerging interactive

art and design culture. The meta-design approach to design process is still a very recent

development in design, and ‘de Dienst and ‘do’ serve as significant examples of this metadesign approach. Investigating meta-design in relation to these graphic design projects

illustrates the point of view that collaborative design methods and concepts can be applied to many different design initiatives. Most importantly for this investigation meta-design shows that it is possible to create contexts, which not only stimulate and direct more ‘useful, lasting and democratic’ design but also allow for more personally meaningful design, for professional, Pro-Am and amateur participants.

58 59

http://www.lab-au.com/ http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/

We design and do it because we love it | section II

How can the study of open organizations and meta-design contribute to developing a

new collaborative design initiative? Examining these graphic design projects shows that the meta-design methods can help developers of collaborative art and design projects to organize the creative process and give the participants the tools and knowledge to

contribute creatively. The following section of this thesis will attempt to demonstrate the significance of the collaborative design approach by applying the SER process model

to a concept proposal for a graphic design initiative: ‘do studio’. The eight rules of ‘open organization’ proposed by Charles Leadbeater will also form a significant part of the

conceptual framework for ‘do Studio’. Combining these two approaches will clarify how the professional graphic designer can stimulate and direct collaboration (SER process

model) and how they can create an open organization (eight rules to open organization) in which the participants manage the creative process.

We design and do it because we love it | section III

SECTION III / ENVISAGING AN OPEN, COLLABORATIVE DESIGN INITIATIVE

The main aim of this section is to apply the collaborative and ‘open approach’ to a new design initiative and propose a project concept to show how to organize the project

development and stimulate professional, Pro-Am and amateur collaboration. How can professional designers employ the meta-design approach and the ‘open organization’ methods to aid collaboration with Pro-Am and amateur participants? Why would

designers want to make the creative process of a project collaborative? In the following section the concept for a collaborative design project, ‘do Studio’, will be described in

more detail and the methods for organizing this collaborative process will be discussed. The idea of ‘do Studio’ will remain as a theoretical proposal for a design initiative and

therefore it is appropriate to conclude this part of the investigation with an analysis of

the possible opportunities and challenges such a design initiative could face and how the investigation could be followed up.

7. ENVISAGING A OPENLY ORGANIZED AND COLLABORATIVE GRAPHIC DESIGN INITIATIVE

This collaborative design project will concentrate on stimulating ‘more useful, lasting and democratic forms of communication’, as proposed by the First Things First manifesto mentioned in the ‘Introduction’ and ‘Section I’ of this thesis. Analyzing the possible

content and context of such a collaborative design project should clarify how professional, Pro-Am and amateur participants would be able to work together and organize

themselves. Sketching a plan and structure for this design initiative should also illustrate

how the ‘open organization’ approach and the process of ‘seeding, evolutionary growth and reseeding’ can be applied in the collaborative design process.

In order to give a sufficient idea of the concept a number of aspects of ‘do Studio’ must be defined:

1. The concept of ‘do Studio’

2. What would ‘do Studio’ be doing?

3. Where would this studio be situated and who would be involved? 4. How would the studio be organized?

We design and do it because we love it | section III

7.1 The concept of ‘do Studio’ / an open studio for visual arts & communication

Project philosophy: ‘do Studio’ is a concept that builds on the brand: ‘do’, developed by

communications agency KesselsKramer, described in the previous section. The idea behind using this existing brand is that ‘do Studio’ fits well in the philosophy of the ‘do’ brand

and also in this way seeks to emphasize the ‘do’ motto: ‘do is the ever-changing brand that depends on what you do’. KesselsKramer have made it clear in their book ‘one hundred and one things to do’ that the brand ‘do’ ‘is mine and yours together’ and that they want

people to ‘use, create, interact, build, mold, shape, question, push, co-create, hit, swing, challenge or design’ with ‘do’.”60 That is precisely what ‘do Studio’ intends, to develop more ‘useful,

lasting and democratic’ forms of design by proposing a virtual and perhaps even a real-

life space where professional designers and design enthusiasts can meet, and share their creative ideas and participate in collaborative design initiatives.

Collaboration: An important aspect that ‘do Studio’ will have to ensure is free access

and open participation; it is important that the space encourages both professionals and

amateurs and all those in between to participate. In this way ‘do Studio’ would be an open design studio, initiated and directed by professional developers/designers, created and developed mostly by the participants.

Commons: Another important feature of the open studio is the ‘commons’ philosophy.

In the most ideal situation all the work made by the participants and developers would

be free to use and develop continuously, similar to work created through collaboration in open-source software projects. People can contribute to design projects but they can also make use of the work they come across for personally meaningful creative initiatives and

license models is Lawrence Lessig, chairman of Creative Commons (CC) and professor of law at Stanford in California, who has written at length about new approaches to copyright licensing.

The idea of Creative Commons is to “use private rights to create public goods: creative

works set free for certain uses. Like the free software and open-source movements, our ends are cooperative and community-minded, but our means are voluntary and libertarian. We work to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain

uses of them — to declare ‘some rights reserved’.”61 This vision of Creative Commons closely 60 61

KesselsKramer / One hundred and one things to do / BIS publishers / 2006 www.creativecommons.org/

We design and do it because we love it | section III

resembles that of the ‘open organization’ of Pro-Am communities and should be a fundamental feature of ‘do Studio’.

Community: It is crucial to create a space for a design community to develop: a virtual or real public space in which people can meet each other, discuss topics, share ideas, be creative. A design community, much like Pro-Am communities, will probably develop through shared interest in various fields of design. As Charles Leadbeater writes, “We

engage with people who share our view of the world without having to live next door to them.”62 At the same time it is also important for participants to be able to develop their own

personal profiles, accounts and possibly even avatars to define themselves as individuals in

the community. This would enable people to build up a personal ‘portfolio’ and reputation,

which can be judged and recognized by the rest of the community. Working for (personal) recognition is a factor that drives Pro-Am activities, and therefore can also be an

important feature for a ‘do Studio’ design community. Without a community of dedicated, like-minded people forming friendships and lasting working relationships it will be

difficult to keep the design activities going. A design community is essential in creating such a collaborative design initiative as ‘do Studio’.

Collaboration, commons and community are the main focus of ‘do Studio’. After

introducing these main conceptual elements for the studio, it is important to give a more specific perspective how these elements could be put into practice. 7.2 What will ‘do Studio’ be doing?

The main focus of this open design studio will be to keep an up-to-date overview of

ongoing collaborative design projects, which can easily be accessed by participants. These can be initiatives for: type design, infographic design, photography, magazine design, book design, animation, game design, (short) film, postcard design, product design,

fashion design, web design, software design, architecture, city planning, or any other field of design conceivable. The possibilities are inspiring and should not be limited. Similar

to the development of Wikipedia, it should be up to the participants to choose a project they wish to participate in, or if they prefer to propose an initiative themselves. In open

source software development sourceforge.net serves as an excellent example of this type

of collective organization of many different collaborative projects. There is much to learn

from this community of software developers. Their slogan, “Create, Participate, Evaluate”63

sums up the most important aspects of their organization, which links back to the open 62 63

Charles Leadbeater / We Think: Why mass creativity is the next big thing / www.wethinkthebook.net http://sourceforge.net

We design and do it because we love it | section III

organization of Pro-Am’s, discussed in the previous section: 1. creative and innovative

ambition 2. collaborative approach to research and development of creative production 3. collaborative approach to discussing and evaluating their work. These aspects, also

inherent to the philosophy of Pro-Am activity are very important in the organization of ‘do studio’, which should reflect in the following concept descriptions.

Diagram I illustrates a conceptual structure of the open studio, mapping out the main features that will be focused on. The following text helps to describe these features:

diagram I. / organizational structure of ‘do Studio’

Collection of ongoing design projects: This aspect of ‘do studio’ will list the various ‘open source’ art, design & communication projects. Participants can add new design projects

to the list, and/or join in the development of existing projects. The aim is to give a clear overview of all the design projects to make it easier for potential participants to find a

project they would like to work on together with other participants. Obviously there are many ways to participate in a design project: by conceptualizing, designing, reviewing,

usability testing. Once a potential participant selects a particular project it should be made clear the different ways they can contribute to the design process. In this way people can get an idea how they would like to participate and apply their interest, knowledge and

skills. Professional designers may then take the chance to direct the design process and

We design and do it because we love it | section III

design enthusiasts may see an opportunity to develop their skills as designers. The key in this aspect of ‘do Studio’ is to communicate vacancies in projects and to stimulate people to contribute by giving detailed ‘job’ descriptions.

Resources/ Tools and Information: ‘do Studio’ also aims to build a constantly growing

‘library’ of common design resources. The studio seeks to provide a place where all types of useful information and design tools can be collected in a structured way. The idea of

a collaborative resource center is that people can use images and add images freely (to a reasonable degree), which together will form a large library of images and information, continuously growing by user participation and creation.

The resource center of ‘do Studio’ will aim at collecting information and tools that

could help participants and those interested in design related subjects to research and

develop design projects. One specific web-based application that could be useful to allow participants to collect information is the wiki, discussed in Section I of this thesis. A

‘design wiki’, which would be initialized by the developers of ‘do Studio’ and developed through collaboration with participants, could be a good way to develop a information center, concentrating on design and design related subjects. The field of design will be

the point of reference, and it will be up to the participants how far they want to develop the ‘information network’ relating to design. Developers of ‘do Studio’ may learn from

information networks like ‘Wikipedia’, which provide the initial structure and leave it up to the participants to create and edit the content.

Apart from creating a collaborative center for design information it is also important to

give participants the tools to develop design projects. For computer-based design projects this could be done by providing a list of open source design software programs and links where they can be downloaded. Websites like sourceforge.net have hundreds of free

creative software programs that can be downloaded and used, such as picture-editing,

movie-making, music-composing programs. Open-access to these digital design tools is essential to make the design process more ‘democratic’.

Other useful design resources such as design templates, stock images, music/sounds

samples, video images and can help designers create new work. ‘do Studio’ could also provide a place to collect visual art & design work ‘open’ to use by the community. Another interesting aspect of designing and learning to design with the tools and

We design and do it because we love it | section III

resources available is the use of tutorials. Creating a large organization of design related

tutorials might also be a very interesting collaborative initiative for ‘do Studio’ to develop. It could help design enthusiast to learn the practical skills needed to improve their work.

Design education is a collaborative process that could be made more accessible to a wider public; if there is a need for education then it should be met.

‘do Studio’ community: Creating a structure to help organize a design community is quite a complex endeavor. Computer-mediated communication has made it easier for people to

create and participate in online communities. Investigating communities, such as ‘slashdot. org’, ‘makezin.com’, ‘facebook.com’ has given some idea what features are important to consider in an attempt to create a successful self-governing community.

An essential factor in any community is communication. Throughout the Internet forums are providing people with the space and means to communicate on a large scale. Forums

can be described as virtual public spaces where participants can post thoughts and react to

other people’s thoughts. In an idealistic sense a forum is the example of the ancient Greek ‘agora’, or public sphere where everyone has equal access and opportunity to communicate their ideas. In order for people to become engaged and continue to participate ‘do Studio’ must make the community an integral part of the organization. An online forum, or

the possibility of creating numerous forums, could play a very crucial role in the social

cohesiveness of participants collaborating or seeking new collaborations with each other. It could also be interesting to give people the room to create personal spaces, which

help them to define their own interests, creativity and identity. Apart from providing the opportunity for people to share ideas and take part in discussions it is interesting

to consider the option of giving participants the ability to create personally meaningful representations, such as avatars in Second Life, or personal pages at myspace.com. An

interesting approach is to allow participants to link these personal pages to each other, thereby also creating community through more personal online participation.

Apart from creating community through online participation, it might also be possible to

stimulate physical communities of ‘do Studio’ participants, by creating public spaces where people can meet, work, collaborate and discuss. This brings up a new question: in which physical and virtual surroundings could ‘do studio’ base itself.

We design and do it because we love it | section III

7.3 Where would ‘do Studio’ be situated and who would be involved

‘do Studio’ is interested in utilizing and creating public space for participation in creative processes, concentrating on inclusive instead of exclusive space. To begin with, ‘do

Studio’ could be based in various virtual settings; allowing interaction through computer mediated communication (CMC), such as a website and a common space in a virtual

3D world like Second Life. Collaborating through CMC could make it easier for people to work together over long distances, and with new web applications it is becoming

increasingly possible to design together, as can be seen in the collaborative creation of online environments such as Second Life.

However, in most fields of design it is often necessary and more engaging to work faceto-face with other participants. Due to its multidisciplinary setup ‘do Studio’ should be situated in multiple social settings simultaneously, to meet the demands of multimedia

communication and production. The following descriptions will indicate some possible environments that ‘do Studio’ could utilize to form an ‘open’ studio, where creativity

between professionals, Pro-Am’s and amateurs can be stimulated, without barriers to entry.

‘do Studio’ website: a website could bring together the three aspects of ‘do Studio’:

collaboration, common design resources and community. One only has to look at websites such as Sourceforge, Wikipedia and Slashdot to see the possibilities to combine these

features all in one website. As was mentioned before, the ‘do Studio’ website could present a searchable network of collaborative design projects and provide a collection of opensource software and other resources needed for digital design practices. Websites such

as web logs, forums, chat rooms, and web applications such as, instant messaging, VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol), IRC (Internet Relay Chat), could help ‘do Studio’ and

participants to structure their communication, which is an essential factor in upholding the online community.

According to Tim O’Reilly, Web 2.0 demonstrates the new ways of using the Internet for collaboration and sharing between users. “Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the

rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that

harness network effects to get better the more people use them. (This is what I’ve elsewhere called ‘harnessing collective intelligence.’)”64 Approaching the ‘do Studio’ website as a Web 2.0 64

Tim O’Reilly / Web 2.0 Compact definition / http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web_20_compact.html

We design and do it because we love it | section III

design means that the developers have to look at the website as a platform, and therefore should create an environment and functionality to enable participants/users to create content and link this content to a larger network.

Virtual 3D ‘do studio’: By creating a virtual 3D studio/expo in Second Life ‘do Studio’ could establish a virtual public space where participants can socialize and collaborate

in creative processes. As mentioned before Second Life (SL) is a 3D virtual world that

allows participants to interact with each other through avatars: modifiable representation of themselves. The environment of Second Life also allows participants (know as

inhabitants in SL) to design 3D in-world spaces such as houses and theaters where people can meet, and create items and services that can be bought or sold. An ‘open’ environment

such as this could be inspiring for participants, being a place where new creative items and services can be made, presented, used, re-used, re-designed etc.

The question is whether it would be possible to organize collaboration in creative production in

this virtual world and if the outcome of this production can also transcend the virtual world and be useful for the ‘real’ world. This is not a question that will be addressed in this investigation

but it does introduce the possibility that creativity, in for instance Second Life, might be able to have a purpose beyond the virtual world. An example of how collaboration and participation

can transcend from virtual to real is in education. There are already numerous universities, such as Harvard and Princeton that stimulate educational activity in online virtual worlds. Some professors even give lectures to their students in virtual classrooms in Second Life.

Figure 8 / From left to right - top to bottom / Red {an Orchestra}: a virtual orchestra in Second Life / Cyberclass: a Harvard Law School lecture in Second Life / Rooftop installation: a virtual artwork by Adam Ramona / Lucky Figtree: a Second Life debate

We design and do it because we love it | section III

Open ‘do Studio’s: Starting small, it might be possible to link designers to a physical ‘do studio’ in a particular city, providing common space and tools to enable participants to

work and be creative together. Depending on how well the concept catches on it might be possible to link physical ‘do Studios’ nationally, linking initiatives from city to city

within the same country; building a network of open studios where participants can go

to meet each other in person and collaborate in design projects. In this way professional, Pro-Am and amateur designers can make use of a larger network of designers and

design initiatives. If a network of design studios where to grow nationally it might also be possible to set up similar initiatives internationally, creating a vast network of ‘open’

studios in different countries where people from around the world can go to meet each other. It is a very idealistic prospect to think that such an organization may grow and

develop in this way, but then again in this conceptual stage it does indicate that such a project could become widespread and why it could be beneficial.

Universities / Art & Design academies: As KesselsKramer also demonstrate in their book ‘One hundred and one things to do’, design schools and universities are excellent social

settings to stimulate and direct collaboration. Their collaborative seminar/workshop at the art and design school in Boxtel, described in the previous section, was able to stimulate

collaboration between students, teachers and professional designers. This is an approach

that ‘do Studio’ could also apply, working together with educational institutions to set up

workshops, seminars and collaborative design projects with and amongst students. Apart

from being great places to stimulate collaborative projects, universities and academies are institutions that offer many resources that are essential for design practices; information,

tools and educational courses that could help participants learn more about design theory, the design process and the application of design.

Who would be involved in the open studio? Another characteristic of ‘do Studio’ is that

it strives to be multidisciplinary, showing that design projects involve people with various different professional and non-professional backgrounds.

Developers: The initial developers of ‘do Studio’ will be responsible for creating the

structure and philosophy for the ‘open organization’ of the studio in different contexts, virtual and real. The goal is to create an environment where people themselves can

be creative and can take control of creative processes, whether they are individual or collaborative.

We design and do it because we love it | section III

Skilled designers (professional and Pro-Am designers): Designers that have experience and

are knowledgeable in specific fields of design are crucial in initiating and directing design initiatives. For example, a skilled graphic designer would be able to propose and direct a

collaborative design initiative, such as making a newspaper. Having experience in making a newspaper, and knowing the various elements that are needed to make a newspaper

work allow a knowledgeable graphic designer to take the initiative in coordinating the collaborative creation of the content.

Teachers and academics: Similarly to the professional designers, teachers and academics are

familiar with collaborative methods, such as peer-review and project management and can be useful in directing and evaluating design work and the process of designing. They may also play an important role in research and conceptual development, depending on their interest and specialization.

Amateur designers: Designers who are able to design and have some skills in and

knowledge of design and design related subjects. They see design as a hobby and are still in the process of building up their skills and knowledge of design practices and applications of design.

Design enthusiasts: The viewing audience that doesn’t participate or contribute to the

design process, the common design resources or the community, but does show interest in design by reading about it and observing design activities through ‘do Studio’ initiatives.

In this way they are involved without actively participating in any initiatives of ‘do Studio’. After giving a brief conceptual overview of ‘do Studio’, the spaces where the studio could be situated and the people that could be involved, it is useful to give an idea how the

studio may best be organized to initiate and sustain collaboration, common resources and community.

7.4 How would the studio be organized?

As a concept, ‘do Studio’ is a multidisciplinary design initiative that attempts to combine the main methods of ‘open organization’, proposed by Charles Leadbeater, and the SER process model of Fischer and Ostwald65 to direct the collaborative design process. The

eight rules for ‘open organization’ present the means to define a structure in which a

design community can organize themselves and create (personally) meaningful design Fischer, G., & Ostwald, J. / Seeding, Evolutionary Growth, and Reseeding: Enriching Participatory Design with Informed Participation / 2002 / pp. 135-143. 65

We design and do it because we love it | section III

work. Once the main structure is in place a more specific methodology is needed to help structure the actual design process. The SER process model serves as a good method for

the more knowledgeable designers to begin organizing the design process. ‘do Studio’ aims at bringing together professional designers/developers and Pro-Am participants; creating a project environment where participants can be in control of their own aesthetic and cultural production and collaborate in multidisciplinary design processes.

Open organization: The eight rules of ‘open organization’ could help ‘do Studio’ in formalizing the initial structure of the organization.

1. A kernel to get things going... the goal of ‘do Studio’, the work ethics that guide the

participants, the organizational structure of the studio and a couple of design project propositions are the initial ‘kernels’ to get people started in the open studio. The

developers have to initiate some impressive collaborative projects to get things going, and then it is up to other participants if they choose to collaborate; to develop the ‘kernel’

into a full-fledged design project. Once the initial design projects start ‘rolling’ then more design initiatives could be proposed by other ‘skilled’ designers who wish to develop their own design project.

2. Motivate and attract contributors... In order to get people to participate in ‘do Studio’ it is necessary to motivate and attract contributors. First of all, people have to be well informed

of the projects they can participate in and must be convinced that their skills could make a difference, and that it could be fun and meaningful to collaborate.

3. Crowds need meeting places… Access to common tools, information and the ability to

communicate to peers are essential aspect of collaboration determined by the ‘openness’ of the virtual and real spaces that house participants of ‘do Studio’ design projects.

4. Self-distribution of labor… Participants will choose for the projects they feel are most

interesting, fun and meaningful. Recognition, self-expression and the will to learn should be the ‘currencies’ that drive participants to contribute.

5. Encourage people to build on your ideas... When someone proposes a collaborative project it is up to them to convince other people to become participants in the creative process

and to build on their ideas. It is just as important to encourage people to design, as it is

We design and do it because we love it | section III

to ask for people to give feedback and reviews of designed work, in order to be able to evaluate and improve the design in process.

6. Think Lego... Approaching the design process as a group effort and splitting the process into blocks or modules requires the developers of the project to bring these together as

the project develops. The developers should direct the different modules and bring them together to evaluate and re-design them until they are ready to be re-evaluated and

finalized. This aspect of open organization resembles the methods proposed by the SER process model, which has been discussed previously.

7. Conversational leaders... Instead of having well-paid managers and directors appointed to tell people what to do, leaders in ‘do Studio’ should be those participants who take

initiative by proposing design projects, building up organizational structures and proving

to others that they can guide projects to a desired end. It is about building up recognition and a portfolio of successful projects.

8. The New Model… Bringing the features of open organization together have made this

approach a success for a number of creative initiatives, which has been argued throughout this thesis. Applying the features to the concept of ‘do Studio’ is an attempt to propose a way to put this new model into practice.

These rules to open organization give an idea how to structure ‘do Studio’ in order to

create a self-governing, ‘free to access and use’ environment that aims to foster creativity. Now it is necessary to take a closer look how to organize the design process more

specifically and see how collaboration can be directed between professional designers, Pro-Am designers and amateur designers.

Meta-design approach: The descriptions of ‘do Studio’ up to this point has given an impression of the general structure of the studio concept and its ‘open’ approach to

organization. Diagram II shows a hypothetical overview of the evolutionary development of the three main aspects of ‘do Studio’ (community / design resources / design projects). The SER Process model serves as the basis for this overview and for the envisioned

development of ‘do Studio’. The main assumption of this perspective is that ‘do Studio’,

if successful, will continue to grow and develop once the first ‘seed’ has been ‘sown’ by the developers of the open studio. A ‘seed’ could be a photography assignment, a magazine

We design and do it because we love it | section III

proposal, or an unfinished computer-game design. As time goes on the ‘concentration’

of projects, information and communication could increase, depending on the number

of participants, the amount of new proposals and the intensity of their contribution. In this perspective it becomes clear that ‘do Studio’ could be a user-created environment; a continuously developing collective of many different design projects, community engagements, and contributed resources.

It is also interesting to ‘zoom in’ and envision a specific design project that exemplifies this meta-design approach. A good example of a collaborative graphic design project

that seems to use the meta-design approach and the SER process model is the project

typeforge.net. Initiated by Pedro Amado, Typeforge “focuses on the development of complete fonts using Fontforge, and Type Design Documents on how to design fonts from scratch to an

advanced level. It aims that everyone involved can and will learn more about typography and

type developing in a collaborative method. It will provide the fonts and the font files regularly to users, developers and anyone with an interest in type.”66 de ve l

de ve l

pa re rtic -s ipa ee n di ts ng

diagram II. / hypothetical overview of the evolutionary development of ‘do studio’ / inspired by SER process model (Fischer & Ostwald, 2000)

pa re rtic -s ipa ee n di ts ng

design resources

op e pa rs & nt s pa se rt ed iciin g

de ve l

design projects

in continuum

community

typeforge.org (check diagram III.)

in continuum

seeded information space

re-seeded information space

key seeded information space : design projects / forums / image resources / tutorials / etc.

Studio time

Pedro Amado / Typeforge project description / http://www.typeforge.net/

We design and do it because we love it | section III

diagram III. / model of the design process of typeforge.net / designing a font family

de ve l

design projects

op e pa rs & nt s pa se rt ed iciin g

A working type specimin

A fully working typeface

de ve l

A full working font

seeded information space

completing the font

pa re rtic -s ipa ee n di ts ng

bringing the font ‘family’ together

in continuum

evolved information space D

key D developer : Pedro Amado P participants : type designers, font testers, critics, document writers

Studio time

Typeforge aims at developing a professional font in five phases during which the initial

design, or ‘seed’, evolves in the cyclical process of evaluation, ‘re-seeding’, re-designing and re-evaluation. This design process follows the meta-design methodology that envisions creative collaboration between developers (skilled designers) and participants (skilled

designers and amateur designers) and evolves over time. Diagram III gives a visualization

of the meta-design process that could apply more specifically to a design project within ‘do Studio’. Typeforge is a perfect example of a collaborative graphic design project that makes use of computer-mediated communication and open-source software to collaborate, use/

create common design resources and stimulate a small-scale community of type designers. Imagine if this project would be one of the thousand comparable projects collected in a large-scale design organization, such as ‘do Studio’. What are the opportunities and

challenges of initiating a design project in which participants collaborate and develop the design together? Could a large-scale, self-governing design studio be realized? Would

people be willing to participate and for what reason would they participate? What could be the outcome of such a design initiative?

We design and do it because we love it | section III

8. DISCUSSING THE CONCEPT OF ‘DO STUDIO’ Why would people be willing to participate in ‘do Studio’? Looking at the group of people that could be involved in ‘do Studio’, described above (e.g. skilled designers,

teachers, amateurs etc.), there are several reasons why they would want to participate in a collaborative design environment:

1. Education: ‘do Studio’ could be an environment where people learn from each other through design practice and collaboration. Skilled designers could learn to direct the design process and in turn teach amateur designers new design skills.

2. Multidisciplinary collaboration: Multidisciplinary design projects would require people

from different backgrounds to work together and apply their expertise to certain aspects of a design initiative. The possibility to work and learn from multidisciplinary design

projects could attract people from many different fields of interest to become participants. 3. Open to participation: The ‘open’ philosophy of ‘do Studio’ may appeal to people who are looking to contribute at their own pace: no one to tell them what to do or when to do it.

Many people who were previously excluded from participating in design processes could

potentially take part, to learn the ‘tricks of the trade’, apply their own skills and share their ideas with other participants.

4. Create personally meaningful design and communication: Giving participants tools and

information to help them in the design process will be crucial to allow them to be creative themselves. As Gerard Fischer pointed out in his article ‘Beyond Couch Potatoes’ more

and more people want to become designers instead of always being at the receiving end

of the design process. An important aspect of ‘do Studio is also that people can build up

their own ‘identity’ with in the projects and design community and that their recognition grows as a result of their contribution.

5. Building a community and network: Designers will need other designers to help them

and it could be very convenient to build up a network, or community of people who have similar interests and goals.

6. Building commons: The prospect of contributing to and making use of free culture is

We design and do it because we love it | section III

one that appeals to many people. Sharing a constantly growing library of resources, with

for example images, texts, templates could be an inviting aspect of an ‘open’ design studio, where people can use and develop resources freely. Participants would more likely make use the library if it is easily searchable and well organized. The organizational system is an aspect of ‘do Studio’ that would probably also develop over time, but an initial

structure (possibly a substantial start to the library) should be in place when people start

to contribute. Participants would also be more inclined to contribute to it if they believed that it was a reliable place for them to share their creative resources.

7. Innovation and development: The working methods and philosophy of the project as a whole concentrate on constantly evolving the design through ongoing collaborative

processes. In this sense all design project are creative development processes that rely on

constant evaluation to foster innovation. This method of working, constantly building on

ideas and creativity of others may also intrigue people who don’t consider themselves to be designers to participate in such design processes.

What could be the outcome of such a studio? From the beginning of this investigation

the aim has been to investigate and develop ways to create ‘useful, lasting and democratic communication through design’. The study of the Pro-Am movement and their working

methods have exemplified how people who aren’t considered to be professionals approach the design process in a more useful, lasting and democratic way. Pro-Am methods are

being praised by more and more designers and design theorists for their ways of working. How could professional designers stimulate and direct collaboration with Pro-Am’s

and amateurs and how could they adopt such an ‘open’ approach to design and to be able to create community in the design process. Meta-design, and the SER process

model in particular, illustrate a method to bring the professional, the Pro-Am and the amateur designers together in a collaborative design process. By making the design

process collaborative and open for more people to participate, not only for designers, this investigation supports the search for ‘useful, lasting and democratic communication’.

The main goal of the concept proposal for ‘do Studio’ has been to illustrate how such

an outcome could be reached through collaboration between professionals, Pro-Am’s and amateurs. The concept of this open studio is hypothetical, based on analysis and

comparison of existing initiatives from various fields of design, and design related fields.

We design and do it because we love it | section III

Looking at comparable initiatives such as Wikipedia, Second Life and Make Magazine gives a glimpse of the possibilities these new ‘environments’ hold for the collective intelligence and collaborative creativity.

Could this project proposal yield a new collaborative process model for design projects?

The investigation of the eight rules of ‘open’ organization and the SER process model have made it possible to take a different approach to the collaborative design process. These

two approaches can be combined to enable developers (professional/skilled designers) to collaborate with users (Pro-Am/amateur designers) and to organize and structure their

design initiatives themselves in a larger context (‘do Studio’). In this way this investigation does combine these two approaches/models into one, to suggest a way to develop a large multidisciplinary design community, in which designers from various backgrounds can work together, share their work, and evolve.

The diagrams (I, II and III) attempt to visualize the structure and organization of ‘do

Studio’ and demonstrate how the approaches/models can be put into practice. Looking at diagram III shows the way the SER process model would work in a specific typography design project. The application of the model demonstrates the collaboration between

participants and developers of this specific project and how their collaboration helps in

the five-phase development of a ‘font family’ (a group of fonts relating to each other). At the end of phase five the project can continue, by proposing a new plan for a new font family or by proposing to re-design the existing font family. This diagram shows the application of the SER process model to a specific design initiative.

In diagram II the main point is that the SER process model can be applied to organize the evolutionary development of ‘do Studio’ as a whole. As in the ‘open organization’

approach the ‘seeds’ or ‘kernels’, proposed by the developers initiate different projects that constitute ‘do Studio’. As time goes on the amount of projects would grow as a result of more contribution and more design initiatives being proposed by the participants

of ‘do Studio’. The main difference of the SER process model in diagram II is that the

participants are able to propose design projects themselves, contribute to different projects and communicate freely with the rest of the ‘do Studio’ design community. Applying the

rules of ‘open organization’ to the SER process model would allow ‘do Studio’ to develop,

without the developers having total control over the proposal of new projects, the ‘seeding’ and ‘reseeding’ of these projects and the communication between participants.

We design and do it because we love it | section III

Could ‘do Studio’ become an ongoing collaborative design project? The start up of ‘do

Studio’ depends on the developers; to make sure that the ‘infrastructure’ of the project stimulates and allows for the various types of interaction. It is also important that the

developers of ‘do Studio’ propose some initial collaborative projects to get things started. The more interesting these initial projects are the better they will persuade people to participate and join the design process. The possibility that ‘do Studio’ could develop

from a concept into a real, large-scale collaborative project is a ‘long shot’. Its success

would mostly depend on people who feel inspired to contribute to the design processes

and continue developing them; by reviewing designs, discussing the work with others or

actually making the illustrations or layout of the design work. In order for this to happen ‘do Studio’ must allow people to take initiative, to be creative and direct the process

themselves. In theory, once the organizational ‘infrastructure’ is in place and the initial

projects are ready to be ‘seeded’, ‘do Studio’ will start growing and evolving as more people participate and contribute to the creative environment. Success depends on how engaged the participants will be in the design projects and the community of ‘do Studio’.

How could ‘do Studio’ be investigated further? The hypothetical proposal of ‘do Studio’ could be investigated more in-depth and tested on the assumptions made in this part

of the thesis. The aim of this section was to come up with a proposal for a concept that could be tested as a socio-cultural research ‘experiment’. Examples from the field such as Typeforge and other collaborative open-source projects prove that these kinds of

design projects do exist; the question is rather how well these projects work, whether they do bring about good design results and a stimulating creative environment. It

would be interesting to see whether the methods used to organize ‘do Studio’ and the

(design) processes could be put into practice and what the outcome would actually be

if the methods were applied to different kinds of design projects. Would a collaborative

typography design project work in the same way as a collaborative animation project? Can the SER process model be ‘re-designed’ to include individual creative processes within a social creative process?

Furthermore, there is another aspect of this investigation that has to be considered as well, namely whether the outcome of collaborative design processes, between professionals, Pro-Am’s and amateurs, is actually more ‘useful, lasting and democratic’. There are a

number of design critics and theorists who believe that by making the design process

more open for Pro-Am and amateur participation would degrade the quality and integrity

We design and do it because we love it | conclusion

of the design process and the design itself. For further investigation of the topics in thesis it is important to also consider the criticisms of design and media theorists, to give an

objective account of the subject of professional and Pro-Am collaboration and to be able to incorporate their criticism in testing the methodologies of meta-design and Pro-Am rules of ‘open organization’. It is also important to investigate the practical challenges

of professional and Pro-Am collaboration in design processes. Despite their differences, could they actually work together?

Conclusion / WE DESIGn “Based on the great benefits derived from the division of labor [Campbell, 1969; Florida, 2002]

professional designers play an important role in our society. The “average” person does not want to build her/his own house, design her/his own car, or write her/his own software system or sorting routine, and therefore is glad to delegate such tasks to domain designers. Likewise, most people

do not have the time to participate equally in all aspects of the political system in order to become fully engaged and informed, and therefore rely on intermediaries who act in their interests.” 67 This quote brings up an important point for this investigation: professional and skilled

designers will continue to play a vital role in (cultural) production because most people do not want to take part in designing most of the goods and services we make use of in our

daily lives. A Pro-Am does not seek to compete with a professional in a commercial sense, nor do Pro-Am’s strive to become totally self-sufficient. Pro-Am’s show professionals and amateurs that it is possible to take a more personal approach to design, if you have the ‘tools, skills and knowledge’ to do so.

Is the Pro-Am movement just a passing trend? The concept of the Pro-Am is relatively

new even though the influences of the Pro-Am movement can be traced back decades to the counterculture of the 1950’s and 1960’s. The historical investigation in the beginning

of this thesis indicates that the ethics and motivation for the current development of the

Pro-Am ‘revolution’ are deeply rooted into our Western culture. They have reinvented and

continued the Do-it-Yourself mentality; carrying on the belief that by taking initiative and working openly together it is possible to become less dependent on commercial products and services. Criticism of the commercial agenda is exactly what professional designers

are also expressing more and more nowadays; the First Things First Manifesto 2000 is a

clear example that this struggle for more engagement in design, and through design, is an 67

Gerard Fischer / Beyond “Couch Potatoes”: From Consumers to designers and active contributors / 2002

We design and do it because we love it | conclusion

important topic for designers. This has been the main motivation for this study and has set the basis for the main standpoint of this investigation.

Stimulating and directing professional and Pro-Am and amateur collaboration in design processes will foster “more useful, lasting and democratic forms of communication”. This has been the plight of this investigation and throughout this thesis examples are given to illustrate that the collaborative design approaches and Pro-Am methods of ‘open

organization’ can help designers of all backgrounds engage in design. To include the

viewers/users and make them participants in the design process can make the end result

more personally meaningful, and useful for a community if the design initiative addresses

issues shared by a larger group of people. Creating community through such collaborative design processes can also contribute to more lasting forms of communication in the form of expanding social and information networks. The case studies of ‘de Dienst’ and ‘do’

clearly demonstrate the thesis standpoint. The collaborative methodologies that these two design initiatives employ empowered the ‘audience’ to become active participants in the design process. ‘do’ and ‘de Dienst’ are quite specific examples of this open and

collaborative approach to design and are initiatives/projects carried out in the Netherlands by Dutch design and communication bureaus. It would be interesting, for further

investigation in this subject, to explore similar initiatives in other countries and perhaps in other fields of design, to show that this development in design is becoming more widespread.

There are of course also various critical perspectives concerning the democratization of the design process. One of the main features of Pro-Am involvement in design processes is

that of free/open participation and contribution. Participants are free to come and go as

they please; there are no formal consequences if a participant decides to leave the design

process. This could make the design process quite unstable, if there isn’t a team basis, as is

often the case in professional design projects. Another criticism of open participation may be that with no barriers of entry more people will be able to sabotage the design process. Both of these points can be considered drawbacks to the idea of open participation.

However an argument that has been put forward to counter these criticisms is the power and influence community ethics and codes of conduct demonstrate to defend against the

rebellious attempts of individual saboteurs. The website Slashdot serves as a good example of a community that governs itself; giving trusted members the ability to moderate and

condemn unwanted behavior and participation on the website. It is important to mention

We design and do it because we love it | conclusion | acknowledgements

that these points of criticism have to be studied further and are very relevant to the further investigation of openly organized collaboration in design processes.

The concept of ‘do Studio’ illustrates that ‘openly organized’ collaboration between

professionals, Pro-Am’s and amateurs in design projects is theoretically possible and that the methods used can help to make design more open for people to contribute. The concept of ‘do Studio’ can serve as the starting point for further investigation of

collaborative design, as a proposal for a socio-cultural research project. It would be very interesting to see what kind of collaboration could be stimulated by design initiatives

and what the outcome of ‘do Studio’ design projects might be. Would ‘do Studio’ attract

enough participants? How could the developers stimulate enough people to participate, without offering them wages? How does the individual creative process relate to the collaborative creative process? Apart from continuing the project from an academic

perspective it could also be interesting to set up ‘do Studio’ as a real design initiative. The next step in order to realize ‘do Studio’ is to conceive an organization and a step-by-step plan how to set up the first design projects and collaboration with a design team. Who knows what the future may bring for design initiatives like ‘do Studio’.

To quote Bill Drayton, in Bruce Mao’s book ‘Massive Change’: “We are at a stage in the evolution of our planet that we have to think and work together.”68 More and more, I think we have to design together.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people for helping me through this one and a half

year ‘journey’ and inspiring me in my studies & life: Ingrid Mulder, Lisa Janssen, Sophie Hamers, Paul van den Hoven, Aukje Thomassen, Hanke Leeuw, Merel Gilsing, Ina van

der Brug, Christina Slade, Bart Dieho, Nirav Christophe, Ineke Muller, my colleagues at

Commodore Gaming, my colleagues from project group ‘Straatbeeld’, my classmates from PSAU, Martijn Engelbregt, John Brooke, Joep van Esch, Jos Hoes, Sean Charles, Ruben van Leer, Jasminka Beganovic, Mieke Hoogerbrugge, and my family: Adriaan, Wanda, Wendelien and Richard Hebly. 68

Bruce Mao & Jennifer Leonard / Massive Change / 2004

We design and do it because we love it | references

FEATURED REFERENCES Articles > Giovanni Aneceshi / Visibility in Progress / Design Issues: Volume 12 / Number 3 / MIT Press / 1996

Audrey Bennet / Interactive Aesthetics / Design Issues: Volume 18 / Number 3 / MIT Press / 2002

Max Bruinsma / In discussie met de openbare mening / OPEN 11 / 2006 Nick Couldry / The productive consumer and the dispersed citizen / In: The International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7(1): 21-32 / 2004

Gerard Fischer / Beyond “Couch Potatoes”: From Consumers to designers and active contributors / First Monday / Issue 7 / December 2002 / http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_12/

Gerhard Fischer / Meta—Design: Beyond User-Centered and Participatory Design /

University of Colorado / Center for LifeLong Learning and Design (L3D) / Department of Computer Science / 2003

Fischer, G., & Scharff, E / Meta-Design—Design for Designers / 3rd International

Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS 2000) / New York / 2000 / pp. 396-405. Fischer, G., & Ostwald, J. / Seeding, Evolutionary Growth, and Reseeding: Enriching Participatory Design with Informed Participation / Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (PDC’02) / Malmö University / Sweden / 2002 / pp. 135-143.

Ken Garland / First Things First Manifesto 1964 / http://www.kengarland.co.uk/ Elisa Giaccardi & Gerhard Fischer / Creativity and Evolution, A Metadesign Perspective / Center for LifeLong Learning and Design (L3D) / Department of Computer Science / University of Colorado / 2005 / http://x2.i-dat.org/~eg/research/publications.htm

We design and do it because we love it | references

Elisa Giaccardi / Metadesign as an Emergent Design Culture / Leonardo Vol. 38 / No. 4 / 2005 / http://x2.i-dat.org/~eg/research/publications.htm

Robert van Gijssel / Interview with Martijn Engelbregt: Het gaat me om de zoektocht / Volkskrant / 04.06.2004

Joke Hermes / Gevangen in Ongemak / OPEN 10 / 2006 Ivan Illich / Tools for Conviviality / New York / Harper and Row / 1973 / http://clevercycles.com/tools_for_conviviality/

Nicholas W. Jankowski / Creating community with media: history, theories and scientific investigation / in: S. Livingstone & L. Lievrouw (eds.), Handbook of New Media.

London: Sage / 2002 / http://oase.uci.ru.nl/~jankow/Jankowski/publications/main.htm Naomi Klein / The Financial Times / May 29 / 2001 Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. / User-Centered System Design, New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction / Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. / Hillsdale, NJ / 1986

Tim Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Reilly / Web 2.0 Compact definition / http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/ web_20_compact.html

Virginia Postrel / Do it yourself / in: Business Week / April 2007 / http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/apr2007/ Theodore Roszak / From Satori to SiliconValley / 2000 /

http://library.stanford.edu/mac/primary/docs/satori/reversionaries.html Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. / Participatory Design: Principles and Practices / Lawrence Erlbaum Associates / Hillsdale, NJ. / 1993

Marc Vlemmings / De beste stuurlui stappen aan boord / In: Items 2 / BIS Publishers / April 2007

We design and do it because we love it | references

Lee Worden / The Rise and Fall of the Whole Earth Catalog / 2004 / http://two.ucdavis.edu/~worden/ Books > Michael Bierut, William Drenttel & Steven Heller / Looking Closer Four: critical writings on graphic design / Allworth Press / New York / 2002

Manuel Castells / The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on Internet, Business and Society / Oxford University Press / 2001

Martijn Engelbregt / Dit Is Nederland / Valiz / 2006 KesselsKramer / One hundred and one things to do / BIS publishers / 2006 Charles Leadbeater / We Think: Why mass creativity is the next big thing / www.wethinkthebook.net

Bruce Mao & Jennifer Leonard / Massive Change / Phaidon Press Limited / 2004 Howard Rheingold / The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier / The MIT Press; Rev Sub edition / November 1, 2000 / http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/

Websterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s New World Dictionary / Third College Edition / Simon & Schuster / 1988

We design and do it because we love it | references

GENERAL REFERENCES & FURTHER READING Articles > Susanne Bodker, Christina Nielsen & Marianne Graves Petersen / Creativity,

Cooperation and Interactive Design / University of Aarhus / Denmark / 2000 www.daimi.au.dk/~sorsha/Papers/CreaDIS_printed.pdf

Alex Coles / On Art’s Romance with Design / Design Issues / Volume 21 / No. 3 / MIT Press / 2005

Geoff Cox & Joasia Krysa / Art as Engineering: techno-art collectives and social

change / In: Art Inquiry / vol. V: Cyberarts / Cybercultures / Cybersocieties, Ryszard W. Kluszczynski, ed., Lodz: Scientific Society Press, Poland / 2003 / http://wiki.i-dat.org/wiki/research/read/Home

Geoff Cox & Joasia Krysa / System error: economies of cultural production in the

network society / In: Malcolm Miles, ed. New Practices / New Pedagogies, London: Routledge / 2005 / http://wiki.i-dat.org/wiki/research/read/Home

Lincoln Dahlberg / Computer-Mediated Communication and the Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis / JCMC (1) / October / 2001 /

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue1/dahlberg.html Jodi Forlizzi and Cherie Lebbon / From Formalism to Social Significance in

Communication Design / Design Issues: Volume 18 / Number 4 / MIT Press / 2002 Jean-Paul Fourmentraux / Internet Artworks, Artists and Computer Programmers: Sharing the Creative Process / Leonardo Vol.39 / No.1 / 2006

Steven Heller / Back Talk, Interview with Max Bruinsma / Print / Krause Publications Inc / 2000 Henry Jenkins / Interactive audiences? The ‘collective intelligence’ of media fans /

In: Dan Harries (ed.), The New Media Book, London: British Film Institute / 2002 / http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/publications.html

We design and do it because we love it | references

Rachael Luck / Dialogue in participatory design / Design Studies 24 / Elsevier ltd. / 2003 Tim Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Reilly / What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation Software / 2005 /

http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html Nathaniel Poor / Mechanisms of an online public sphere: The website Slashdot / In: Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(2), article 4 / 2005 / http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/poor.html

T.L. Taylor / The social design of virtual worlds: constructing the user and community through code / In M. Consalvo et. al. (eds) / Internet Research Annual / Volume 1:

Selected Papers from the Association of Internet Researchers Conferences 2000-2002. / New York / Peter Lang / 2004.

Theo Tegelaers / Interview with Martijn Engelbreg: De kunstopdracht de Dienst / Van Logement naar Parlement / 2004

Tiziana Terranova / Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy / In: Social text; vol. 18 / 2000

Andrew Vandenburg / Citizenship and Democracy in a global era / Macmillan London / 2000 Benjamin Weil / Art in Digital Times: From Technology to Instrument / Leonardo / Volume 35, No. 5 / 2002 / pp. 523-537

Barry Wellman & Milena Gulia / Net Surfers donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t ride alone: Virtual communities as

communities / in: Networks in the Global Village, ed. Barry Wellman, Boulder-Colorado / 1999

Books > Yochai Benkler / The Wealth of Networks: How social production transforms markets and freedoms / Yale University Press / New Haven and London / 2006 http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php/Main_Page

We design and do it because we love it | references

Jürgen Habermas / The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere / MIT Press / 1991

Lawrence Lessig / Free Culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity / the Penguin Press / New York / 2004 / http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

Wark McKenzie / A Hacker Manifesto / Cambridge, Mass / Harvard University Press / 2004

Chris Turner / Do-It-Yourself: About Bart Simpson and the ‘do-it-yourself ’ philosophy of punk / In: Planet Simpson / Ebury Press / London / 2005

We design and do it because we love it | references

(FEATURED) WEB LINKS Adbusters

Great website that seeks to transform commercial media culture and direct it towards ecological and social awareness. http://www.adbusters.org/

Center for Lifelong Learning

The Center for Lifelong Learning and Design (L3D) is part of the Department of

Computer Science and the Institute of Cognitive Science at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/ Creative Commons

Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright — all

rights reserved — and the public domain — no rights reserved. Our licenses help you

keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work — a “some rights reserved” copyright.

http://creativecommons.org/ EGBG / de Dienst

http://de-dienst.nl/ Institure Without Boundaries

A program of the School of Design at George Brown College http://www.institutewithoutboundaries.com/ KesselsKramer / ‘do’

http://www.dosurf.com/

http://www.kesselskramer.com/ Lab[au]

Laboratory for architecture and urbanism in Brussels http://www.lab-au.com/

We design and do it because we love it | references

Linden Research

To connect us all to an online world that advances the human condition. http://lindenlab.com Make magazine

The first magazine devoted entirely to DIY technology projects, MAKE Magazine unites, inspires and informs a growing community of resourceful people who undertake amazing projects in their backyards, basements, and garages. http://www.makezine.com/ The Pro-Am Revolution

A blog on the way to a book about people who take amateur pursuits to professional standards. Authors include Charles Leadbeater and Paul Miller. http://www.proamrevolution.com/ Second Life

Join a burgeoning new online society, shaped entirely by its residents. Here you can be

or do anything. Explore an ever-changing 3D landscape. Meet new and exciting people. Create a masterpiece - or an empire. Second Life is yours - to imagine, invent, and inhabit.

http://secondlife.com/ SKOR

Institute for Art and Public Spaces (Stichting Kunst en Openbare Ruimte) in the Netherlands

http://www.skor.nl/ Slashdot

News for nerds. Stuff that matters. http://slashdot.org Sourceforge

The worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest development and download repository of Open Source code and applications.

http://sourceforge.net/

We design and do it because we love it | references

Typeforge

This project focuses on the development of complete fonts using Fontforge, and Type Design Documents on how to design fonts from scratch to an advanced level. http://www.typeforge.net The Well

The WELL, originally the Whole Earth â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Lectronic Link, provides a literate watering hole for some articulate and unpretentious thinkers. http://www.well.com

The Whole Earth Catalog Online

Curiosity. Exploration. Independence. Community. Living fearlessly. Principles. Tools and ideas. Whole Earth shows you ways to take back your power and put it to use. http://wholeearth.com

(FEATURED) AUTHOR LINKS >

Links to researchers / professors / authors / artists / designers in the field: Yochai Benkler

http://www.benkler.org Stewart Brand

http://sb.longnow.org/ Max Bruinsma

http://www.maxbruinsma.nl/ Martijn Engelbregt

http://www.egbg.nl/ Elisa Giaccardi

http://x2.i-dat.org/~eg/ Nikolas Jankowski

http://oase.uci.ru.nl/~jankow/Jankowski/publications/main.htm

We design and do it because we love it | references

Henry Jenkins

http://www.henryjenkins.org/ Naomi Klein

http://www.naomiklein.org/ Charles Leadbeater

www.charlesleadbeater.net Lawrence Lessig

http://www.free-culture.cc Tim Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Reilly

http://www.oreilly.com Howard Reingold

http://www.rheingold.com/ T. L. Taylor

http://www.itu.dk/~tltaylor/cv.html